Adam Kokesh and His Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

JRBids

Senior Member.
If the free market took over roads, water, etc etc, how long before some people would complain that "the Rockefellers" or "the Jews" own everything? :)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Someone else already asked where funding for our roads, schools, etc, would come from. I'm going to make a guess that if you took away all taxes it wouldn't make that much difference in the finances of many on the extreme right including those who label themselves "libertarian".
In this thread? I didn't spot that. Did anyone answer?
Many would say, it seems quite simple really, the key is in the premise of 'Fiat Currency', i.e. 'Make it so' or 'It is legal tender because we say it is'.

If the Government printed its own money, they could fund whatever they needed with it and it would cost next to nothing as there would be no interest due on it. As is, the private banks in the form of the Fed, B of E etc, produce the money, (nowadays simply by typing it into a computer and transferring it wherever they choose) and then charge the Government interest which is where most of the taxes go, (paying off the interest).

Here are some links which set it out in more detail:

http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

It is something of a truism that the 'rich only pay tax if they want to'. The tax system is set up so that corporations and the rich pay very little tax as there are so many loop holes.

eg
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreen...ro-taxes-will-receive-429-million-tax-refund/
Logically, I suppose it makes sense as fb is effectively part of the NSA, surveillance machine. :(

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/17055
 
Last edited:
Also I'm not about to pay to drive a road. Governments DO provide necessary services, or would you like to PAY policemen and forensic scientists to do their job. Or would you like to pay tolls on roads to get your pregnant wife to the hospital? And sorry but government DO make technology. Ever hear of the internet? Or NASA? Or the military? Governments also tend to be able to do things corporations can't or won't, like build FUCKING roads. Will those same benevolent companies do upkeep on those roads? Past examples show that when corporations get a hold a public commodity like water or roads, fees go up and services decline.
Sorry but Ayn Rand was a moron, her ideas are abject failures, and she got what was coming to her. Did you know she denied the link between smoking and lung cancer, and then DIED of lung cancer?

Oh, so your beloved government does all these nice things for you for free? The difference is you get your money stolen at gun point, and then spent on stuff you didn't decide. Also, tax money isn't very effective, because you gotta pay people to for example collect these taxes and so on. In the end you will get a lot less money spent on your roads if you compare with something in the private sector. We already pay police and forensics. We already have pay tolls on the roads, even if your wife is pregrant.

Governments also tend to be able to do things corporations can't or won't, like build FUCKING roads
1. Take it easy brochacho, if I follow the politeness policy Mick set up, you should too.
2. Why are you so attached to the thought that only the government can build roads? Hard working people build the flat things called roads, not any politician. Just look at Japan with all of their awesome high speed trains, many of them are all privately built.

Sorry, I have never listened to Ayn Rand, and I don't really care about her thoughts surrounding tobacco.
 
If the free market took over roads, water, etc etc, how long before some people would complain that "the Rockefellers" or "the Jews" own everything? :)

There are big profits to be made in those markets, so you can expect many different corporations fighting for customers. If you understand how Supply vs. Demand works when you don't have any government bailing corporations and through regulation getting them monopolys (real capitalism) you are to expect corporations to produce and provide better goods at lower prices, to win customers.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
If you understand how Supply vs. Demand works when you don't have any government bailing corporations and through regulation getting them monopolys (real capitalism) you are to expect corporations to produce and provide better goods at lower prices, to win customers.

Absolutely know how supply and demand works, I'm a real estate agent. Doesn't stop homeowners from trying to tell me how things "really" are, just like you are doing here.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Oh, so your beloved government does all these nice things for you for free? The difference is you get your money stolen at gun point, and then spent on stuff you didn't decide. ...
In theory taxes are spent on things commonly held by the society one resides in to be of a basic necessity, a common standard, etc.
To say you resent that is to say you basically don't accept the common goals of the society you belong to.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
In theory taxes are spent on things commonly held by the society one resides in to be of a basic necessity, a common standard, etc.
To say you resent that is to say you basically don't accept the common goals of the society you belong to.
No, not at all!
So the ONLY way to get these basic necessities is through taxes? There's no other way?
You're saying, in a nutshell, 'well taxes are set up to provide these necessities, if we don't have taxes we don't get these necessities...' And of course you're then saying if you don't agree with that then you don't accept 'societies goals.' Hogwash.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It's a gesture of goodwill and trust in the community you belong to.
No I wasn't saying 'well taxes are set up to provide these necessities, if we don't have taxes we don't get these necessities...', but I do kind of believe resentment against the use of taxes is anti-social.
That there is room for abuse or misuse of tax appropriation, or that there can be unfair, unjust, unnecessary taxation I would not dispute.
I'm talking of the basic principal of intent, which is different from the days of the king tithing the peasants. (though I guess even that was a social contract of sorts promising protection from invasion and the right to live on the land.)
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
There were obligations of the land owner to the peasants. Protection from lawbreakers, from foreign invaders, providing a church and even food in the times of drought or crop failure, even the midwife was usually supplied by the land owner. Roads to get goods were provided by the nobility.

The peasant owed the landowner a certain amount of work, during planting, harvest and other times. The entire time, added to together meant that for about 4 and half months, the serf worked for the overlord. Today's tax independence day is in early May or late April.

Do you really want a private police force? One that only protects those that can pay them?

No one likes taxes, but they are needed to support things that all of us need. The 20 year old may not think that he needs the hospital, until he is hit by a drunk driver and is severely injured. He may dislike the police, when they stopped him for speeding, but he will wish that they had caught that drunk driver earlier.
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
With a little more restraint I'll point out that Congress has a vested interest in building commerce. Commerce is business, business means pay for people which they will spend on things, and all of that means taxes. Maybe you just don't live in a big city where roads have to constantly be maintained, but I do. Trust me the Sands Corporation has no interest in repaving the thousands of miles of roads in Vegas. And simply they probably don't have the muster to do it. Similarly who else will pave and maintain the roughly 200 some miles of pavement between California's nearest big cities and Las Vegas, where many Californians go to relax. It simply has to be government. And as said before why trust a corporation to do it? What makes you think they have your best interests even remotely at heart? They only care about profit, and yes that is a bad thing when taken to a point. Example: hmmmm give a child a needed kidney, or say no and keep a couple thousand....
And I brought up Ayn Rand, because you use her terminology and snarl words. If you haven't read it, you are recycling material from people who have read her.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I think some necessities, like roads, need to have standards for one thing, like the material they're made with, widths, how curvy they are, etc. Who would set the guildelines? If someone used a really inferior material, and the turns were too sharp, do you vote with your wheels and take a detour? And there are probably areas where people wouldn't bother building roads, so yes, you wouldn't get the necessities.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Ok, but no one has explained why taxes and government are mutually exclusive. They're not, but we're led to believe they are.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I a society with no government, all the power goes to the strongest. I am an older woman and I do not want a bunch of folks with lots of guns, telling me how I have to live and such. I WANT the things that government provides, like the 'rule of law'.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Do Freeman on the Land still knock around in the US? The cheeky guys trying to avoid being slammed in criminal and civil courts and losing as their arguments are pseudo-legal?
...


Another view of that...

skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/14/the-legal-gibberish-of-freeman-on-the-land/#more-10466
 
Last edited:

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Another view of that...
I do like that :) It's like a parallel universe. The next bit:
Yes as the piece there says this "Lawful Rebellion" thing is relatively big in English courts right now because of the Magna Carta clause it refers to. Basically for a very short while 800 years ago you could reject the authority of the state and not be criminalised for it, or something akin to this, and criminals without lawyers have been trying to argue it still has effect! Unlike Rational Wiki's view I seem to recall in England there may have been one or two minor successes, if not overall acquittals, mostly due to the judges being completely confused as to what to do! A lot of it sounds very plausible if referencing something the judge hasn't come across before.

It may all be unworkable but I think it has a tremendous charm and appeal. The embattled citizen reasserting his natural right to be ungoverned, and using ancient, obscure and repealed law, or just plain made up stuff to do it.

I had spoken to a young man going into court the next day armed with these arguments from YouTube videos, convinced he had the secret to beating the court system. That was how I first heard of it.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Did you get a follow up on how his court case went?

I agree, it is a romantically empowering notion.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
I do like that :) It's like a parallel universe. The next bit:
Yes as the piece there says this "Lawful Rebellion" thing is relatively big in English courts right now because of the Magna Carta clause it refers to. Basically for a very short while 800 years ago you could reject the authority of the state and not be criminalised for it, or something akin to this, and criminals without lawyers have been trying to argue it still has affect! Unlike Rational Wiki's view I seem to recall in England there may have been one or two minor successes, if not overall acquittals, mostly due to the judges being completely confused as to what to do! A lot of it sounds very plausible if referencing something the judge hasn't come across before.

It may all be unworkable but I think it has a tremendous charm and appeal. The embattled citizen reasserting his natural right to be ungoverned, and using ancient, obscure and repealed law, or just plain made up stuff to do it.

I had spoken to young man going into court the next day armed with these arguments from YouTube videos, convinced he had the secret to beating the court system. That was how I first heard of it.

There were a couple of successes, but these were complaints being heard in front of magistrates, not judges. Once you appear in front of a judge you had better have recourse to the laws THEY uphold, not the ones you think apply to you. Magistrates are generally easy to confuse if you can appear to know what you're talking about, judges not so much.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
I a society with no government, all the power goes to the strongest. I am an older woman and I do not want a bunch of folks with lots of guns, telling me how I have to live and such. I WANT the things that government provides, like the 'rule of law'.
Wait, isn't that basically how it is anyway? You may not be held at gunpoint but you are told how to live, and yes, the police and military have 'lots of guns' they can and very frequently have used to enforce these laws.
I'm not against government; I'm against the idea of taxing the people in the way that it's happening now. There has to be either a better way, or no taxes at all, aka a different system entirely for the government to function on.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Did you get a follow up on how his court case went?
Yes. It went badly for him! No precise details, I'm afraid.
There were a couple of successes, but these were complaints being heard in front of magistrates, not judges. Once you appear in front of a judge you had better have recourse to the laws THEY uphold, not the ones you think apply to you. Magistrates are generally easy to confuse if you can appear to know what you're talking about, judges not so much.
Apologies. Yes, magistrates. That'd make more sense. Yes a judge should know his or her onions (they all should really) and if someone before them argues a position that seems obscure and clarification isn't to hand, surely they'd adjourn, go grab the right book. Though I suppose there are lots of grey areas, incompatibilities between statutes and jurisdictions, balances between rights and duties, and a judge is often empowered with discretion to make qualitative decisions.

Such discretion could never extend to coming to a decision that a citizen should not be subject to the law. They'd be putting themselves out of a job, come to think of it.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I watched that in it's entirety and thought he made a great deal of sense. This left me a bit confused, if I'm honest.
I thouht he was an idiot, I listened to about 1 minute. I think I left 182 comments, then I gave up.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Wait, isn't that basically how it is anyway? You may not be held at gunpoint but you are told how to live, and yes, the police and military have 'lots of guns' they can and very frequently have used to enforce these laws.
I'm not against government; I'm against the idea of taxing the people in the way that it's happening now. There has to be either a better way, or no taxes at all, aka a different system entirely for the government to function on.

We'll just all give volunarily? @@
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
I thouht he was an idiot, I listened to about 1 minute. I think I left 182 comments, then I gave up.
Different strokes and all that :) He seemed intelligent to me. I must say why bother leaving 182 comments for someone you regard as an idiot? 134 would have done :)
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Different strokes and all that :) He seemed intelligent to me. I must say why bother leaving 182 comments for someone you regard as an idiot? 134 would have done :)

I was pissed. ") Then I figured he wasn't worth it. He seemed like a relatively healthy strong young guy who lived in the country and wanted to fend for himself. So go for it. Just don't impose your "will" on others. Which is basically what he wanted. Don't collect taxes to build roads. How do we build them, well we collect money and pay people to build them. DUH! That's what we do! I had the feeling he doesn't like the government we have but he'd be perfectly happy if things were run "his" way, by , for lack of a better way to explain--a different government!
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
I was pissed. ") Then I figured he wasn't worth it. He seemed like a relatively healthy strong young guy who lived in the country and wanted to fend for himself. So go for it. Just don't impose your "will" on others. Which is basically what he wanted. Don't collect taxes to build roads. How do we build them, well we collect money and pay people to build them. DUH! That's what we do! I had the feeling he doesn't like the government we have but he'd be perfectly happy if things were run "his" way, by , for lack of a better way to explain--a different government!
You've hit the nail on the head. It's a cyclical thing. We hate the government. Let's run things for ourselves. Okay, this is great but shall we start organising stuff? Hey look, we have another bureaucracy. Shall we start voting on who does what? Hey look, we're having elections... etc.
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
I would dispute that that society has no murder or wars. I would also dispute that they have no jealousy or theft or rape. It is just ignorant. They are a society with rules and their own version of "regulations". Those regulations are just traditions, but they are no less powerful, and woe be to you if you break them. People try to idealize those societies until they want electricity, cars, personal possessions, hospital care, a police force, a military, education, or any other modern convenience.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I would dispute that that society has no murder or wars. I would also dispute that they have no jealousy or theft or rape. It is just ignorant. They are a society with rules and their own version of "regulations". Those regulations are just traditions, but they are no less powerful, and woe be to you if you break them. People try to idealize those societies until they want electricity, cars, personal possessions, hospital care, a police force, a military, education, or any other modern convenience.

And toilets.
 

"They"

New Member
I am unhappy with taxes "like almost all others" but I still pay because of the important things that are done with the money.
- Education would go to hell. The richer would afford paying to send their kids to private schools, but poorer and probably a lot of middle class would have to make survival decisions with their money and school would be lower on the list than food or a roof over their head.
- Roads would be nice in some areas, but it would also be a rich/poor type setup.
- There would be a couple major business people/companies in the country who would have all the money/power instead of a government. Our dollars might have pictures of J.P. Morgan on them and his banks would probably rule the country.
Goto that site and try to watch those shows.
http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america
- Things like the great depression would most likely been massively increased since there wouldn't have been a government to help resolve it. (Those big businesses would have probably have stepped in sooner or later sort of like governments)

My view of this is that we wouldn't have an elected government, we would have several businesses controlled by men/families who could rule with an iron fist because if you didn't like it you would be kicked out/eliminated and you couldn't complain because "oh yeah, we don't have a government to complain to!" :eek:
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Think some of the city states of Italy, when the wealthy families chose the cardinals and the pope.
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
I am unhappy with taxes "like almost all others" but I still pay because of the important things that are done with the money.
- Education would go to hell. The richer would afford paying to send their kids to private schools, but poorer and probably a lot of middle class would have to make survival decisions with their money and school would be lower on the list than food or a roof over their head.
- Roads would be nice in some areas, but it would also be a rich/poor type setup.
- There would be a couple major business people/companies in the country who would have all the money/power instead of a government. Our dollars might have pictures of J.P. Morgan on them and his banks would probably rule the country.
Goto that site and try to watch those shows.
http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america
- Things like the great depression would most likely been massively increased since there wouldn't have been a government to help resolve it. (Those big businesses would have probably have stepped in sooner or later sort of like governments)

My view of this is that we wouldn't have an elected government, we would have several businesses controlled by men/families who could rule with an iron fist because if you didn't like it you would be kicked out/eliminated and you couldn't complain because "oh yeah, we don't have a government to complain to!" :eek:

Good points. I would like to add that with no government proper, I could see Barter Town/the Thunderdome popping up somewhere, especially out here in the so called Fight Capital of the World. I would also think gangs or loose collectives of people who band together to protect each other would develop. With no recourse to law, people would make their own through violence. Especially in a I CAN take something, so I will, because I have the guns/numbers to do so.
 
Haven't been on Metabunk for a week or so.

Regarding this video
I thouht he was an idiot, I listened to about 1 minute. I think I left 182 comments, then I gave up.
Please motivate and explain why you think his arguments are idiotic. Try listening to his whole statement and then you can start hating.

Not trying to throw shit at you, but this is the same behavior that chemtrail believers use very often. Don't fall down to their level, just watch the whole thing and then explain why he is an idiot.

I'm all for discussion this topic and I'm very interested in seeing someone to argue with the logic of the statement.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Haven't been on Metabunk for a week or so.

Regarding this video

Please motivate and explain why you think his arguments are idiotic. Try listening to his whole statement and then you can start hating.

Not trying to throw shit at you, but this is the same behavior that chemtrail believers use very often. Don't fall down to their level, just watch the whole thing and then explain why he is an idiot.

I'm all for discussion this topic and I'm very interested in seeing someone to argue with the logic of the statement.
Makes sense what he is saying too much sense actually . I actually subscribe to his channel but must have missed it . To many worship government as if it was their mommy . Really who needs roads ? You can live without them if you never had them . Many roads are built by private companies after the government skims off their portion . Who needs a miliatry if their are no other governments to fear ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

solrey

Senior Member.
Makes sense what he is saying too much sense actually . I actually subscribe to his channel but must have missed it . To many worship government as if it was their mommy . Really who needs roads ? You can live without them if you never had them . Many roads are built by private companies after the government skims off their portion . Who needs a miliatry if their are no other governments to fear ?

Who needs roads? Every single society throughout human history has needed roads, beginning with the earliest footpaths of the stone age that were the "roads" between hunting/fishing/harvesting grounds, villages and trade centers. Indeed, most of the first roads followed game trails and the Natchez Trace is one rather well preserved example of a game trail that was turned into a road by humans. In fact it's likely that our hominin ancestors like homo-erectus made use of game trails as well through areas where blazing a trail would be impossible without tools or a big heavy body.

In the US anyway, nearly all roads are built by private companies contracted by the government and paid with taxes, except for the few built by the Army Corps of Engineers.

In any form of democracy the government is ultimately accountable to the people, whereas corporations are accountable to no one but the god of maximum profits. Trust a corporation to support basic human needs? No freakin' way. If government performs no other function it should be to protect the populace from corporations.

Even egalitarian communes utilize a form of government.

And Larken Rose is an idiot. The "free market" is a libertarian fantasy world where magic happens.

Step 1: Collect Underwear
Step 2: ? (insert magic here)
Step 3: Profit

cheers
 
J

Joe

Guest
Who needs roads? Every single society throughout human history has needed roads, beginning with the earliest footpaths of the stone age that were the "roads" between hunting/fishing/harvesting grounds, villages and trade centers. Indeed, most of the first roads followed game trails and the Natchez Trace is one rather well preserved example of a game trail that was turned into a road by humans. In fact it's likely that our hominin ancestors like homo-erectus made use of game trails as well through areas where blazing a trail would be impossible without tools or a big heavy body.

In the US anyway, nearly all roads are built by private companies contracted by the government and paid with taxes, except for the few built by the Army Corps of Engineers.

In any form of democracy the government is ultimately accountable to the people, whereas corporations are accountable to no one but the god of maximum profits. Trust a corporation to support basic human needs? No freakin' way. If government performs no other function it should be to protect the populace from corporations.

Even egalitarian communes utilize a form of government.

And Larken Rose is an idiot. The "free market" is a libertarian fantasy world where magic happens.

Step 1: Collect Underwear
Step 2: ? (insert magic here)
Step 3: Profit

cheers
Well in a green utopia without cars and people using carbon based fuels to heat their houses and provide electricity ect ect . who would need a road ? yea and i see our government is fine from pro9tecting us from evil corparations or a least corparation that dont go along with them politically . Those who do reap all the benifits . Governments have become the new Mafia . No bid contracts for 700 million dollar websites that dont work ? billions for solar panel industries that fail ? In the US private companies that donate to certain political parties left or right get conracts to build roads after they make hefty political donations to certain politacal parties . Its all corruption and favortism which is not the point of any government . I belive we need a small government for certain things but what we have now and have had for many years is corparate facism . The FED Rules America . Spare me history on road builing I was just making a point if government didnt help to get a road built someone else would . Rome built many roads and where did it get the Romans ? Same place as America soon http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/michelle-obamas-princeton-classmate-is-executive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Well in a green utopia without cars and people using carbon based fuels to heat their houses and provide electricity ect ect . who would need a road ? ..
All the people on roller-blades, skateboards, wind-kites, bicycles, horses and horse-drawn carriages.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Well in a green utopia without cars and people using carbon based fuels to heat their houses and provide electricity ect ect . who would need a road ?

That's just plain silly. Going to hike on a footpath to buy your food? Oh wait We'll all grow our own. I can't understand how many people seem to be unable to comprehend that not everyone is like themselves. Or the way they see themselves. Not everyone can live in a log cabin on a field, grow their own food and pump their own water. Even the clothes you wear have to be shipping by road. Not everyone WANTS to live that way.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Haven't been on Metabunk for a week or so.

Regarding this video

Please motivate and explain why you think his arguments are idiotic. Try listening to his whole statement and then you can start hating.

Not trying to throw shit at you, but this is the same behavior that chemtrail believers use very often. Don't fall down to their level, just watch the whole thing and then explain why he is an idiot.

I'm all for discussion this topic and I'm very interested in seeing someone to argue with the logic of the statement.

I don't have to listen to 19 minutes of idiocy when 2 will do just fine. I got the gist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J Adam Kokesh Open Carry March Agent Provocateur General Discussion 2
Mick West TFTRH #16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
Mick West Adam Taylor's Withdrawal from the 9/11 Truth Movement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
Belfrey Debunked: Claim that injury makeup shows Alison Parker and Adam Ward as "crisis actors." Conspiracy Theories 8
Mick West Hoax: AirAsia QZ8501 Black Box Voice Recorder [Alleged Adam Air 574 in 2007] General Discussion 0
jvnk08 Debunked: Sandy Hook: "End the life of Adam" Sandy Hook 13
jvnk08 SSDI says Adam Lanza died a day before Sandy Hook massacre Sandy Hook 20
MikeG VA Taking Veterans' Guns Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Debunked: LaVoy Finicum Only Carried his Gun on His Right. [He Carried Two Guns] General Discussion 24
deirdre Claim:Republicans block bill to stop terrorists from buying guns General Discussion 9
Mick West H.R. 5344 - Bill Banning Enhanced Body Armor Conspiracy Theories 92
Hingefactor Dept of Agriculture Orders Submachine Guns with 30 Round Magazine General Discussion 66
Libertarian Needs Debunking: More Guns = More Crime General Discussion 156
Mick West Connecticut Gun Owners Refusing to Register Their Guns? General Discussion 6
BlueCollarCritic Debunked Conspiracies Update - The Government Is Not Confiscating Guns General Discussion 18
Mick West Debunked: Sandy Hook: The Guns, Assault Rifle, Gun in the Trunk, Handguns Sandy Hook 15

Related Articles

Top