Friday, April 28, 2017

Chastisement ≠ Violence

In response to related “anti-spanking” articles including: “Against Spanking”

Chastisement ≠ Violence

Rather, just physical chastisement serves to minimize violence and natural rights violations in a society.

In recent decades the anti-spanking movement has negatively contributed to the serious problem among our younger generations regarding their growing disdain for courtesy, respect, and responsibility toward their peers, elders, and society at large.

Chastisement of children associated with a modest amount of pain is NOT “violence” — on the contrary, such just punishment SAVES LIVES!

Just chastisement saves the lives of those undisciplined children who rashly run into the road while playing without learning to first check to ensure no vehicles are coming.  Such chastisement also serves to save a law abiding driver from accidentally wounding or killing a child, thus also from facing great punitive emotional and financial damages for a tragedy they didn’t even cause.

Just chastisement saves the lives and property of those who would be victimized by undisciplined children who have tendency to set and play with fire without stopping to think that the fire could spread for acres before gotten under control.

Just chastisement saves lives of undisciplined children (as well as others) who are prone to resort to violence when they disagree with the viewpoints of other individuals.  The growing trend of violent “protests” among the American youth exemplifies more fruit of the anti-spanking movement.  Such behavior issues are certainly related to many “snowflake” children who are apparently so overly spoiled that they cannot emotionally handle disagreement.  A spoiled child to this degree is a serious danger risk to society at large and are at risk of becoming prone to violence.

Known among cultures dating back to the origins of civilized societies, without a *modest* amount of pain being associated with disciplining a child, the correction is far less memorable and the child will be more prone to repeat the action requiring such discipline.

Another serious problem the anti-spanking movement has caused is the ongoing trend for “concerned citizens” (i.e.: paranoid citizens) to report parents who would dare to physically chastise their children in any way.  As a result, there are countless cases where parents and their children have been through literal “hell” due to warrantless and reckless reporting of “child abuse”.  Unless there is a situation of actual child abuse, all such interferences exemplify violations of our Natural Right to Parental Authority.

Again, no one with a sound mind suggests “whupping” or beating a child to the point they are seriously physically or emotionally wounded.  This axiom is even documented in ancient texts like the Bible (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21), indicating a very long standing acknowledgment among various societies at large.

A modestly administered well deserved spanking does not equate to long lasting physical or emotional wounding.  Rather, such correction serves to improve and even save lives, as already exemplified.

However, it appears that many among the anti-spanking movement have even asserted that NO amount of physical chastisement is warranted EVER.  Many of these radical “never-spankers” honestly believe that ANY form of physical chastisement is to be equated with “child abuse”.

Yet, practical experience indicates these folks to be wrong and will continue to do so.  People do not need so called “experts” or biased studies to come to a simple understanding of such truths which have been proven to be effective throughout human history.

Further, children are not ALL equal — they require varying degrees of chastisement, ranging from raising one’s voice, to a painless slap, to a full on spanking.  But as typical, collectivist indoctrination has caused proponents of the “never spank” movement to ignore the fact that humans are all individuals rather than collectives.  What works well as effective chastisement for one individual might not work likewise with another.

If one is not overly concerned with the potential of their children becoming spoiled to the degree that they might not give ample caution to various actions having great risk of hurting themselves or violating the natural rights of others… don’t ever spank your children and enjoy that new found faith in such contemporary “experts”.


bernard baruch carman
* * *
infinityGAMES ∞ SmokinGames ~ audio/Mac specialist
∞ ∞ ∞

Friday, April 7, 2017

Gun Regulations Foster Violent Crime & Slavery

As with the STATE’s so called "Drug War", regulating guns will never magically make guns disappear from the face of the planet, or prevent people from easily and readily acquiring guns on the black market.  Therefore, to protect ourselves against criminals who would do us harm, individuals should NEVER be prohibited from exercising our Creator-given Natural Right to Self-Defense, which certainly includes self-armament.

Further, every individual has the natural right to concealed self-armament WITHOUT ANY "permit' or "license" from the STATE — individuals have intrinsic “permission”, granted by our Creator (Nature, or Nature's God), as part of Natural Law which trumps Civil Law.  Law enforcement, military, and bureaucrats ought to understand this when they take their oath of office to defend the US Constitution for the explicit purpose of securing our Natural Rights through the Rule of Law.  Otherwise, they don’t understand the founding principles of the United States of America and are thus not fit for holding public office in a nation of “free people”.

The only exception to this natural rule of law occurs when an individual has previously exhibited violent behavior violating the natural rights of others, thus has proven themselves to not be responsible enough as such liberty warrants.  They would have to prove themselves responsible before a fully informed jury of peers prior to having their liberty restored.  Otherwise, every individual should be considered innocent until proven guilty of being unfit to posses a firearm.

When a violent criminal is largely certain that his next victim is most likely unarmed in a society whose Civil Law abandons Natural Law and therefore violates Natural Rights, that violent criminal will be far more likely to violate the natural rights of another individual.  This is due to the blatantly obvious reason that there is little to no fear of effective defensive response using deadly force, for the violent criminal knows that law-abiding individuals often obey Civil Law in spite that it violates Natural Law.

In contrast, when a violent criminal is largely uncertain that his next victim may be armed in a society whose Civil Law upholds Natural Law and therefore protects Natural rights, that violent criminal will be far less likely to violate the natural rights of another individual.  This is due to the blatantly obvious reason that there is far greater fear of effective defensive response using deadly force, for the violent criminal knows there is a far greater chance his would-be victim is armed.

Therefore, gun regulations only serve to foster violent criminal activity and enslave individuals within a society.

Such is why areas which have the toughest gun restrictions have the highest crime rates — a fact that the anti-gun crowd seems to often ignore.  Exemplified routinely in our society’s history, “Gun Free Zones” (Helpless Victim Zones) are the most prone to mass violent attacks, because to the violent criminal such areas are akin to “shooting fish in a barrel”.

Also often exemplified in society, merely brandishing a firearm in defense of a violent criminal attempting to engage in a shooting spree immediately ends the confrontation.  However, dispensing with gun regulations will serve to put an end to violent criminal activity BEFORE it even begins.

Let us never forget: gun regulations made the Holocaust possible — we must put an end to Nazi gun regulations!


bernard baruch carman
* * *
- truth seeker/seeder • SeedsOfTruth∞Liberty
- infinityGAMESSmokinGames ~ audio/Mac specialist

∞ ∞ ∞

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

“Climate Change” Debunked... AGAIN!

Addressing the folly of the “climate changers”, I happened upon this matter again today by coming across this little article about Apple, Google, and Microsoft banding together to combat “climate change”:

It is impossible to "fight" climate change, because the climate is always changing on account of the sun’s ever changing activity.  Further, as another Apple user posed in the comments for the article, one volcanic eruption can put out as much “carbon emissions” as did the entire Industrial Revolution.

And let’s not kid ourselves about all this sudden concern from Apple and others over how the STATE needs to “save us” from the “big bad corporations”.  Apple and other computer manufacturers used environmentally toxic chemicals in its products for decades.  It wasn’t the STATE which caused Apple and other manufacturers to change their minds — it was pressure from the marketplace of concerned individuals.

Certainly everyone should be doing their own part to avoid polluting our shared planet.  But this "Ice Age / Global Warming / Climate Change" nonsense is not "green”.  The ever changing false narrative changing throughout the years alone has caused me to be overly skeptical.  Then there’s the routine modus operandi of the STATE to consider.

I have reasoned over the years that if politicians REALLY cared about the environment, industrial hemp would have never been made illegal and remained so for the better part of a century.  Rather, the STATE gives financial incentives to supposed “green” companies, like for example those that make autos powered by batteries which is definitely NOT green.  The only “green” part about such deals cut between corporations and the STATE are the bureaucrats’ wallets being lined with more phony Federal Reserve Notes.

People should consider not being so gullible and recognize the fact that all this “Climate Change” rubbish is yet just another big scam against the People by the largest corrupt corporation of all: the US Federal Government.

Recently, Lord Christopher Monckton ( has published work on the subject in which he asserts that the math used in attempts to prove "Global Warming / Climate Change" was bogus.  For those interested in the truth of this matter, he goes into detail in this video presentation:

Global Warming Propaganda Explained - Lord Christopher Monckton 2014 NIPCC Convention

I'm just thankful that there are scientific math geeks willing to spend great efforts in studying the false claims of those alarmists who wish to spread fear among the people of the entire planet in order to advance their agenda of control and dominance, exemplifying the pinnacle of greed and lust for power while claiming to be caring for people.

I’m just not skilled in such a way.  Therefore, my attention toward all such fanciful claims of mankind causing “Climate Change", along with the previous bogus narratives, has mostly to do with recognizing the ongoing agenda of the STATE to usurp our various Natural Rights — which it has been doing in a gradual but steady pace arguably since 1913.

I only happened to run across the Apple article by accident, while I was searching around in attempts to help a dear friend of mine with her again dead MacBook Air.  Apparently, there is a major issue with the logic boards failing on these "Air" models, and it appears Apple has not been forthright about the situation.

Perhaps Apple should spend more time focusing on making its products reliable — as it used to do under the management of Stave Jobs — rather than getting involved in areas it, and apparently many others, know absolutely nothing about.


bernard baruch carman
* * *
- truth seeker/seeder • SeedsOfTruth • ∞Liberty
infinityGAMES ∞ SmokinGames ~ audio/Mac specialist
∞ ∞ ∞

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Worst US President on Medical Marijuana

For all those who might be freaking out about the recent announcement from the US Attorney General regarding the ongoing failed "Drug War”, particularly on *recreational* Marijuana, here’s my answer (on Facebook) to Mark Barrett’s petty article about how Trump said one thing and then did another...

Mark Barrett shared a link.

It looks like the president said one thing March 7, did another March 30.

A little more than three weeks before he criticized 11th District U.S. Rep.…


(yet, where was the cry of criticism from MSM?)

From MassRoots article “President Obama’s Legacy on Marijuana”:

"But his administration also ignored science and continues to pretend that cannabis belongs in a category for drugs with no medical value. There’s still time before this president leaves office to accomplish rescheduling, and he could also provide mass commutations and pardons to people who have been unjustly punished under marijuana prohibition. But time is running out.”

Isn't it ironic how the US Presidential administration whom the deceived collectivist masses thought was going to end the Federal War on Cannabis by de-scheduling marijuana actually wound up scheduling CBD products in its final month.

Isn't it completely insane that the very same people who should now be sharply criticizing Obama for being a liar and a hypocrite aren’t doing so.

Rather, they are now clamoring about the recent statement by the Trump administration, that it would not interfere with those states which legalized medical marijuana, but would continue enforcing the federal statutes against recreational marijuana.

Time will tell if the Trump administration violates its own promises as did the Obama administration in its first term.

Regardless, all this goes to show further proof that this so called “left/liberal VS right/conservative” political duopoly is nothing more than a lie designed to divide Americans along false ideologies which are rooted in no philosophy whatsoever.

Natural Rights Coalition — Philosophy

It further proves that MSM is the harbinger of extreme bias as well as “FAKE NEWS”.

various Obama’s War on Pot links:

In a shocking about-face, the administration has launched a government-wide crackdown on medical…



How the press declared the drug war over, even as the federal crackdown on cannabis continued.


Pop quiz! Who is the worst president in U.S. history when it comes to medical marijuana?
According to the Marijuana Policy Project, the answer is Barack Obama.


... so much for the so called "HOPE & CHANGE" President!


bernard baruch carman
* * *
- truth seeker/seeder • SeedsOfTruth • ∞Liberty
infinityGAMES ∞ SmokinGames ~ audio/Mac specialist
∞ ∞ ∞

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

BEWARE: Mainstream Insanity!

As I continue to witness the growing division between Americans along fictitious political “ideologies” we are instructed to view as “liberal left” and “conservative right”, it does seem as though the so called political “left” has become as crazy likening Trump to Adolf Hitler as the so called political “right” had been about claiming Obama to be the end-time Biblical Anti-Christ.

Has most everyone gone completely mad?  Or is it merely that the most unsound thinking Americans among us are being magnified by the fear mongering mainstream media in order to rally the masses into a hysterical frenzy riddled with hate, destruction of private property, and general violence?  I tend to believe the latter.

Whenever natural rights are being violated I try to criticize whichever faction of the partisan duopoly is responsible with the intent of soliciting consideration of some alternative option that would maximize peace, prosperity, and liberty.  This often involves mandating the government cease interfering in matters of private life and return to performing its proper function of protecting the Natural Rights of the Individual through the rule of law.

Right now I wonder how many Americans believe it is more proper for the Federal government to create it’s own health insurance plans and then force everyone to purchase them, than it is to secure our national borders.

The issue is rather interesting to me because many who have in years passed claimed “they still read” apparently still do not comprehend, for the very same people who misinterpret the US Constitution’s so called “Welfare Clause” are now doing likewise with the “Defense Clause”.

The US Constitution Preamble clearly states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Notice the section, “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare”.

For decades the so called “Welfare Clause” has been misinterpreted to mean, *provide for specific welfare*, which is of course something entirely different from what it plainly says.

This legal error has been used by the collectivist “left” (and embraced by the collectivist “right”) to have the STATE interfere in the once free — and affordable — markets of medicine and health care, violating both the US Constitution and our unalienable Natural Right to Medical Freedom.  In doing so “BIG PHARMA”, or the “Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex”, was created and healthcare costs began to skyrocket.

Now, the same collectivist “left” is misinterpreting “provide for the common defense”, as erroneously meaning *promote common vulnerability”.  Because by calling for absolutely no immigration vetting process they desire to render our national borders largely defenseless and We the People vulnerable.

Are these people willingly ignoring the fact that some percentage — 5%?… 1%? — of Muslim immigrants have potential ties to, or are directly involved with, one of the various known Muslim terrorists groups?  One would appear ludicrous to be against some kind of vetting process that might catch a few potentially dangerous individuals.

Let’s also consider all the various American immigrants who have spent both monty and time — in fact years of their lives going through a painstakingly long legal process involving background checks and medical history.  If so called “liberals” and “progressives” truly desire “fairness” and “equality” as they so often claim, why would they desire to treat immigrants so unfairly?

Sure, the American immigration system is in dire need of reform, but so is every other area of this corrupted Neo-Amerikan government.  Let’s pursue full reform of government in all branches and at all levels rather than continue in selectively enforcing poor legislation.

But besides considering such simple logistics of reality which all nations must address, does the collectivist “left” not comprehend the difference between the words “promote” and “provide”?  Further, do these apparently confused people not even recognize the fact that nations have borders, and that it is the proper function of government to secure those borders?

If we libertarians didn’t have actual principles, we could also twist the US Constitution according to our own personal whims by asserting that, “provide for the common defense”, means our personal firearms should be purchased by public funding.

Not only is the so called “tolerant” and political “left” entirely out to lunch regarding all these facts, these collectivists who are likening Trump to Hitler are playing the hypocritical fool because factually, Hitlary Clinton is FAR more like Hitler — she is the one who wants to disarm Americans EXACTLY as Hitler disarmed the Jews in Nazi Germany!  (Such is why I call her “Hitlary”.)

Perhaps most amazing in all this insanity is witnessing how effective the century-long mass indoctrination of Collectivism has been in causing the deceived masses to follow after these modern day false prophets, aka: the mainstream media.

Let us recognize the mainstream for what it’s always been — a wide and deceptive gate which leads the collectivist masses unto utter destruction.


bernard baruch carman
* * *
- truth seeker/seeder • • ∞Liberty
infinityGAMES ∞ SmokinGames ~ audio/Mac specialist

∞ ∞ ∞

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Individualism in Early America

FB thread post:

I read on Facebook a lot of empty bravado calling anyone who isn't a Trump supporter a whiney sore loser or "cry baby liberal pansy" or worse. I don't think these types of self-satisfied people are prepared for the pushback taking place. When people see their very idea of Democracy threatened it awakens something. We will allow a plutocracy to prevail and push women & minorities back to the 50s over our cold. dead. bodies.

Noam Chomsky: With Trump Election, We Are Now Facing Threats to the Survival of the Human Species

My initial reply:

These guys, along with "Democracy Now" are nothing but a bunch of Collectivists who are perfectly fine with tyranny -- tyranny is what Collectivism breeds.

Where were their criticisms of the Obama administration when it bailed out the massive banking corporations in the exact manner as did the Bush administration?

Where is their criticism of the Obama administration when he signed the NDAA of 2012 which legalized rendition?

Where is their criticism of the Obama administration which also just declared CBD to be "non-medicinal" and now a schedule 1 drug?

Why are seemingly intelligent people championing such anti-liberty actions of Collectivists on "both sides" of the false political paradigm?

Why worry about what Trump *might* do when these Collectivists have no regard for all the evils of past administrations?

This all just seems like total insanity to me. After all, it's the Hillary supporters who had been rioting and destroying the private property of other individuals.

I cannot take anything these Collectivists have to say seriously due to their blatant hypocrisy.

I find it very sad that the masses continue to worship the STATE rather than stand up against such tyranny.

Philosophy - Natural Rights Coalition

FB thread poster reply:

Can you give an example when your vision on non-"collectivism" has been implemented?

My reply:

I will gladly try to answer your question while at risk of being lengthy in doing so.  8-)

Even if I could not give such examples of how the Philosophy of Individualism has been implemented at the founding of America’s Civil Law through the honoring and protection of our Natural Rights, it wouldn’t justify the hypocrisy these collectivists exemplify in only criticizing one side of the partisan duopoly for such violations of our Natural Rights.

And please don’t misunderstand, I am equally as critical of so called “Conservatives” when they act likewise hypocritical.

My point is that the masses continue to listen to hypocritical collectivists who are deceiving them into believing that only the other so called “side” of the false political “left-right” dichotomy is tyrannical.  Call them fascists or socialists, they are all collectivists.  And by definition of their chosen philosophy, they do not honor the unalienable Natural Rights of the individual.

The Philosophy of Individualism has been implemented in America's Civil Law from the onset, albeit imperfectly — certainly, slavery in America was hypocritical to our founding documents.  However, it should also be noted that pre-Civil War America’s slavery population was ~13%.  Compare that to the present situation whereby nearly everyone has become “wage” slaves of the STATE.  It’s supposed to be the other way around.  the STATE is supposed to be our servant.

Natural Rights principles are what our entire founding documents were created upon.  They are what Jefferson penned as being "self-evident” in the Declaration of Independence.

Examples of Individualism in America’s onset include:

• Natural Right of health care freedom: the STATE didn’t violate or engage in the private free market of medical care and medicine (i.e.: the STATE waged no selective drug wars, so people were free to choose drug remedies by their own free will); the STATE didn’t force out of business or out of the country medical scientists who provided remedies that had a proven track record of success for people’s ailments; the STATE didn’t mandate uncontrolled dosing of the masses through their water supplies of chemicals proven to be toxic; etc…

• Innocence until proven guilty: the STATE used to honor this principle, yet there are a myriad of instances where individuals are treated as guilty until proven innocent; tyrannical acts such as rendition were not practiced by the STATE (while rendition had been likely practiced illegally by previous administrations for perhaps decades, it has only been recently legalized by the most recent administration as previously noted).

• Natural Right of property & privacy: there was never originally a so called “income” tax in America; the founders mandated such direct taxes to be illegal, for it was self-evident that every individual had the right to the fruit of his/her own labor AND the right to keep one’s personal affairs private; the STATE didn’t engage in “civil asset forfeiture”; the STATE didn’t engage in massive general spying on its citizens; the STATE never prohibited gardening or farming on one’s own property.

• Natural Right to self-defense: the STATE didn’t violate violate one’s Natural Right of self-defense by prohibiting or interfering with individual armament (in fact, it was militias of individuals who volunteered to fight in the Revolutionary War in order to maintain this paramount Natural Right… now, such collectivists I criticize desire to entirely disarm Americans who have not violated the Natural Rights of others, thus another example of guilty until proven innocent).

• Natural Right to free market commerce and private contract: the STATE didn’t initially control or manipulate currency, nor did it infringe upon free market commerce; private individuals were free to engage — or NOT engage — in their private business with others according to their own free will and without ANY STATE intervention whatsoever; business licenses didn’t initially exist because it was self-evident that individuals have the Natural Right to profit and therefore survive; marriage licenses didn’t originally exist — marriage is not only a private matter, but also one of CHURCH rather than STATE… remember “separation of CHURCH & STATE”?  ;-)

[noteworthy: a “license” or “permit” means that the STATE is asserting it’s authority over the individual — as “master” — giving the license/permit bearer *permission* to do something that the individual doesn’t have the Natural Right to already do.]

We could go on about how far more tyrannical America has become since its Individualistic leaning onset, resultant of embracing Collectivist principles.  But basically, if one wasn’t violating the Natural Rights of anyone else, the STATE at most all levels didn’t interfere in the private lives of individuals.

… That was the original concept anyway, and I submit that these principles define libertarianism, however, definitely not according to the Libertarian Party.  The LP is largely divided by libertarians, and anarchists who call themselves “libertarians”.  There are also anarchists who call themselves “voluntarists” (or some form thereof), no doubt hoping to make their false ideology sound more alluring to the ignorant.

However, by contrast libertarians understand that if no one ever violated the Natural Rights of anyone else, there would be no need for government at all, and therefore, anarchy could actually work.  We also realize that this is a fantasy.

We who live in the real world of human society, and are of sound mind, acknowledge that some people will always violate the Natural Rights of others.  Therefore, limited government having the primary if not sole function of protecting the Natural Rights of ALL individuals is necessary for a society whose goal is to maximize peace, prosperity, and liberty for ALL.

But I have digressed…

Of course, maintaining a libertarian leaning republic didn’t last long.  Government continued to wax corrupted and powerful, thus a new tyranny was born and since fostered by the advance and then mass indoctrination of Collectivist philosophy.

I’m very glad you asked me this question, because just taking this time to exemplify some of the various ways tyranny has grown in America is helping to encourage me in my goal of fleshing out the website, especially to address various Natural Rights violations by the US Government at all levels and offer practical solutions that end all such violations.

I truly believe that Natural Rights principles, which are all also rooted in the “Golden Rule” shared by many cultures of commoners throughout all of human history, are unifying rather than dividing.  And right now, there is only growing division in “Neo-Amerika”… and that’s not sustainable — Untied We Stand, Divided We Fall.


bernard baruch carman
* * *

infinityGAMES ∞ SmokinGames ~ audio/Mac specialist
∞ ∞ ∞

one Chris responded:

Chomsky critical of bank bailouts:

Chomsky critical of NDAA:

Chomsky on medical marijuana:

Chomsky critical, in general of Obama and Clinton:

one Nancy responded:

Democracy Now has hosted plenty of guests who criticized Obama for the bank bail-outs, for increased prosecutions for cannabis, for deportations, wiretapping, and rendition – among many other perceived violations of civil liberties. It’s fair to say that it has been the crux of its reporting throughout the last eight years. 

The collectivist vs. natural rights debate is constructed on straw men. Any civilization, but especially one with a population in excess of 324 million people (in the US), requires organization – which entails planning, management and arbitration for collective interests. Even in a micro unit as small as a family, individual rights and interests are compromised for the shared welfare. 

Especially after reading “Dark Money,” I’m pretty much convinced that the ‘freedom movement’ – at least as it relates to libertarian ideals – is a cover for greed. It’s no ideology; it’s authoritarian pathology.

my lengthy reply:

thank you again Chris for sharing those links where Chomsky rightly criticized a few Democrats, proving that he doesn’t just criticize Republicans.  i admit that i need to do better in the area of giving credit where credit is due.  perhaps DN does strive to hold both so called “sides” accountable, at least on occasion.

i have definitely signed more than one petition that Democracy Now has distributed in the past.  however, i have also seen DN solicit petitions that ran entirely contrary to Natural Rights principles, and i therefore eventually unsubscribed from their newsletters.  and while i didn’t take time to watch the video of Chomsky, i didn’t notice in the article where he criticizes Obama and Clinton any specific mention of Natural Rights violations.

from my perspective, it seems that both DN and Chomsky — and really the general masses — do not seem to have an objective set of principles upon which their perceived ideology stands firm upon and in truth.  this is why i elected to respond to the initial post of this thread by Davyne, although i admit i was perhaps slightly abrasive in my initial post.  it has not been easy for me to overcome my personal anger issues regarding losing my entire livelihood and life long nest egg resultant from local Collectivism and hypocrisy, but i’m working on it.

consider that no one can justly make up laws according to their own personal whims and desires, or selectively pass into “law” that which will benefit their own cronies rather than everyone.  we libertarians have the same kind of disdain over the practice of “crony capitalism” (which is certainly NOT free market capitalism), as we do for any form of collectivist ideologies (Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc.).  “crony capitalism” is yet one more form of Collectivism because it inherently violates the Natural Right to be treated as equals under Civil Law.

through the gradual adoption of various elements from these collectivist ideologies in our American Civil Law, the masses have been hoodwinked into believing that we can only choose from two so called “sides” of the false “left/liberal - right/conservative” political landscape dominated by a partisan duopoly for far too long.  We the People have the means to put an end to this partisan domination, but we cannot do so without first breaking free from this collectivist deception while considering the re-implementation into our Civil Law, Natural Rights principles rooted in Individualism.

Nancy, you make assertions such as "collectivist vs. [individualism, and/or] natural rights debate is constructed on straw men".  i’m curious as to what particular examples i have already shared above that you find to be constructed on a false argument.  do you believe that individuals have free will and self-ownership, or that they don’t?

you use the phrase "perceived violations of civil liberties”.  for many years i have found it interesting that when we hear the media speak of “rights” it most often uses the phrase “civil rights”.

there is a major difference between Natural Rights and Civil Rights, as well as Natural Law VS Civil Law — Natural Rights are an extension of Natural Law which pre-exists civil government, while Civil Rights are an extension of Civil Law which is created by civil government.

i submit that the reason we don’t hear the media reference Natural Law or Natural Rights is because there has been an agenda for a very long time to advance Collectivist indoctrination, which has been occurring from *both* the so called political “left” and “right”.  this indoctrination process begins at a very young age through the government school system, and continues through adulthood through mass media.

anyone who doesn’t believe this can simply focus on one media talking point issue at a time, compare and contrast the views of the opposing sides being presented, and then ask oneself if there are any other potential solutions to the issue.

for example, same sex marriage debates by the partisan duopoly rarely include any other option other than STATE interference and infringement upon the Natural Right to Private Contract.  massive collectivist indoctrination of the public has caused the masses to forget that the STATE has no authority interfering in private contracts, and likewise that the institution of marriage is not only a private matter but also one of CHURCH rather than STATE.

the answer to this controversial issue is simple — get the STATE out of the equation entirely as it should be.  not every issue is as simple, but in general the STATE should never violate ANY Natural Right of the individual.  if we could just accomplish this, ALL Americans would enjoy a massive increase in peace, prosperity, and liberty… and thus, we would all be able to more easily and happily live and let live.

but let us not be so gullible to think this false partisan dichotomy we have been taught to believe is not by design in order to continue the ever growing great divide between Americans.  United We Stand, Divided We Fall is a true ancient adage; its very concept is fundamental to Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”.  we would be wise to heed such wisdom, especially in light of the present state in which we find ourselves as a society.

for the Philosophy of Collectivism to be adopted, the principles upon which Natural Rights are built must be obfuscated.  followers of the collectivist philosophy must be willing to abandon their individual free will and self-ownership, for servitude to the STATE.  the most popular argument has been that doing so is for the so called “greater good”.

however, once freed from the indoctrination of Collectivism we have been under for most of our lives, we who cherish our individual sovereignty now understand that we have not willingly given it up to the STATE — it has been usurped through the use of force by the very same STATE that by law is supposed to be protecting our individual sovereignty.

Civil Law implementation of Individualism and Natural Law through the protection of unalienable individual Natural Rights does not prohibit organization.  in fact, the organization into Civil Law of such principles is paramount to the maximizing of peace, prosperity, and liberty.  the majority of the problems we face as a society are resultant from the STATE violating Natural Rights of the individual resultant from pandering to collective (or *special*) interests.

regardless what personal whims of collectivist partisans who disregard individual sovereignty and free will have managed to get passed into “law” though bribery, favor, or some other form of corruption in the Legislature, it’s not within the authority of the STATE to infringe upon the private lives of individuals — ANY and ALL such Civil Law which violates Natural Law, and individual Natural Rights by extension, is illegal.

if Democracy Now is actually being critical of the various issues cited in this thread, then it should be explaining the real reason *why*.  it should know that these matters are in direct violation of our Natural Rights which do not originate from any STATE.  We the People should all know and understand this fundamental truth.  however, and again, we have been deceived by collectivist indoctrination to forget such true principles.

further, Natural Law and Individualism does not prohibit welfare.  however, welfare should never be used as an excuse to violate the Natural Rights of anyone.  welfare itself should always be a function of charity, which can really only be voluntary.  although, while some may erroneously believe the use of force equates to charity, this concept obviously adopts a perverse form of reasoning.

therefore, whatever tax/welfare system we construct in our Civil Law should never engage in theft.  rather, we should implement a tax/welfare system that is voluntary, not forced.  while such a task seems daunting, based upon at least one tax structure concept i’ve been reading about, i’m convinced it is possible.

i find it interesting that you have concluded the so called “freedom movement” relating to your present understanding of “libertarian ideals” to be a cover for greed.

i am quick to admit that the so called “freedom movement” and even “Libertarianism” by various so called self-prescribed “authorities” has been corrupted in like manner as other political movements.  segments of these freedom or liberty movements have been for quite sometime hijacked by anarchists, while others by so called “progressives” and “neo-cons”.  such is why i have been working on establishing an accurate standard of principles for what libertarianism truly is, and what it is not, through

so in focusing more specifically upon specific principles, please help me understand how any of the points i included in my short bulleted list of Individualism examples in early America have anything whatsoever to do with any concept of greed.  further, which principles on the NRC website do you feel are rooted in greed, and why?

please also consider that greed is largely subjective, for everyone has varying views as to what being greedy really is.  it is impossible to construct a just and sustainable legal system of Civil Law in a society upon subjective ideas like greed, for example.  we must always seek objective standards rather than subjective ones when dealing in law.

regardless, if you're going to criticize those motivated by greed, then you must certainly criticize those who engage in and protect the political establishment’s banking scheme which has been in place since 1913.  consider that almost no US administration since has sought to audit or expose the Federal Reserve banking system... except JFK and we know where that tragically got him.

also regarding greed, consider that greed and theft are associatively relative to one another.  the ideology of libertarianism rooted in the Philosophy of Individualism that i am advancing through the honoring and protection of Natural Rights by society’s Civl Law, specifically does not allow for theft because individuals have the Natural Right to property.  conversely, the adoption of Collectivist ideologies in our Civil Law does allow and even attempts to justify theft… and again, for the so called “greater good”.

for those who seem to entirely disagree with the concept that Natural Rights principles must be implemented in Civil Law for peace, prosperity, and liberty to be maximized in a society, i must question such a rationale and solicit an alternative concept that could do likewise which is not rooted in the Philosophy of Collectivism.