ALL GUN LAWS ARE ILLEGAL IN THE USA. DECODED: THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. KNOW THEIR DUTIES.

Here is the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And here is how to read it:

[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [since] a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state [is made from the people, who are all individuals, voluntarily].

The second amendment is one of the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. All of the Bill of Rights declare that the U.S. Government never can infringe upon aspects of being an individual, in short, the U.S. Government cannot tread over any of these personal rights.

The Bill of Rights limit what the agents of Congress can do and not what individuals can do. As I showed you in CASHING IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY, all of the Bill of Rights deals with the duties the then newly formed federal government had with respect to any individual.

The biggest failing in discourse over the Bill of Rights is the lack of talk emphasizing the duties of Congress and agents of government has to any American. It is quite clear what is meant by Congress shall make no law as we see in the opening salvo to protect any individual from an overreaching government.

All laws that infringe upon the right of any individual to keep and bear arms such as requiring permits of any kind are illegal and against the Constitution of the United States of America.

In jurisprudence, which is what we're talking about here, liberty means that realm where the law (politicians) is content to leave you alone. Where politicians make laws, there are duties and rights. Always, there can be no right without a corresponding duty and thus no duty without a corresponding right.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the states in compact, which is what the rest of the Constitution details. The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with conferring rights to states.

Many phrases of every day English spell out the reality of limiting government while identifying some of the weightier aspects of being an individual. In all cases, the phrase the people means anyone, even you.

The Bill of Rights is chock full of these phrases that deal solely with any American individual. The Bill of Rights does not confer rights to groups nor does it impose duties upon individuals. Congress and the states alone have duties imposed by the Bill of Rights.

• the people to keep and bear Arms
• without the consent of the Owner
• The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
• the persons or things to be seized
• No person shall be held to answer 
• nor shall any person be subject for
• nor shall be compelled 
• nor shall private property be taken 
• the accused shall enjoy 
• to be informed of the nature and cause 
• to be confronted with 
• to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
• the right of trial by jury shall be preserved
• Excessive bail shall not be required
• retained by the people
• or to the people

Read more ...

PAY UP ... BITCHES.

A while ago, 18 year old Rachel Canning of Lincoln, New Jersey flipped off her mom and dad, moved out and moved in with the parents of a girl friend. Now, the perhaps precious, perhaps ungrateful young adult has sued her parents hoping to get a court to force her parents to fund her post-secondary education holiday. In short, Rachel has said to her parents, "Pay up, bitches!"

Alicia Silverstone in Clueless (left). Rachel Canning in court (right).

All matters of civil jurisprudence are matters of rights and duties. There can be no right unless there is a corresponding duty.

So, does Rachel Canning have a legal right to a post-secondary education and do her parents have the legal duty to pay for such a legal right?

If judges of courts were to rule stupidly and upon no previous basis of Anglo-Norman-American jurisprudence that such a right and thus duty exists, then what exactly is that right and duty?

Do the parents get the right to decide the post-secondary education and if so, is Rachel under duty to complete the post-secondary education under terms and condition set forth in a contract? Perhaps Canning's parents would pay only for a trade school such as cosmetology school.

As it stands now, both the U.S. and various states' governments claim the right on behalf of the citizenry to impose the duty upon parents to pay for the rearing of their children, should parents' incomes exceed a sum tallied in cash. Otherwise, politicians claim the same right to impose duty upon others to pick up those costs. However, until now, no legislature has claimed the right and thus imposed the duty for parents to pay post-secondary education bills.

It's unlikely Canning prevails because codified law doesn't support her claim of right nor do any precedent rulings. Then again, the robed one Chief Justice Roberts idiotically ruled that a fine is a tax and therefore Congress can make people buy medical bills paying insurance so that everyone must pay for rec sex pregnancy control pills for women, gays must pay for pregnancy care for women and births of their children and so on.

Seemingly, Rachel Canning hates her parents and yet she wants them to give up something, buying power, without herself giving up anything in return, respect, devotion. Wanting to get something without giving up something in honest exchange is the picture perfect essence of greed.

Read more ...

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECREES ITSELF AS MASTER PIMP FOR ALL SEX WORKERS IN EUROPE

On Wednesday, February 26, the European parliament voted for resolution to criminalize the purchase of sex but not the sale of sex. In Europe, this is the known as the Nordic model of prostitution. The resolution passed by almost a 2.5 to 1 margin (343 for, 139 against, 105 abstained). You can read all about the silliness in the U.K.'s Guardian.

Mary Honeyball a spokesman for the labor party of the EU parliament called the continuance of prostitution "exploitation of women," the new measure a "nuanced approach" to tackle prostitution by purportedly "punishing men who treat women's bodies as a commodity" and doing all this without punishing women "who are driven into sex work."

By fining men while letting women work as paid whores, the irony here is that government has become the pimp, the pimp who wants his girls working and who wants to collect fees from customers called fines.


Women aren't driven into sex work. Prostitutes like the work. It's fast, easy, and has a high-pay to low-skill ratio. 

Worse, these silly European parliamentarians suffer from the false belief that bodies are being traded as commodities. Bodies aren't being traded as commodities, pleasure is. For a people who earn their living trading votes for favors, one would think parliamentarians would fully understand prostitution and how it works.

What is the real problem? Government, the created creature has grown beyond society, the creator. This is the true evil.

When a people live under a law for everything, that living is called totalitarianism. That is what totalitarianism means. It doesn't mean communism or socialism, though those kinds of collectivism tend to lead to totalitarianism. 

For people to be free, there must be freedom, or those realms for individuals where there is no officialdom. Said another way, there must be liberty, or where the law (government) is content to leave all alone and thus not create duties and rights.

Government should be tiny, hardly noticeable in the lives of the people. Instead, the lives of the people are tiny and government is all pervasive. 

People get what they deserve. This is what people deserve for wanting government to provide income-giving welfare instead of merely protection of any individual and his property (ownership in stuff) from foreign mobs and domestic ones.

The right act of course, is to de-criminalize prostitution and restore it to its rightful place, liberty, or that arena where The Law is content to leave individuals alone.

Of course, the real reason for regulation and condemnation of anything is revenue for over-sized salaries and pensions for bureaucrats and politicians. If they fine prostitutes, they look evil. There aren't that many working whores so the total take is small. 

However, if they fine the johns, revenues shall increase. There are tens of thousands of potential fine-paying johns. 

By claiming to stamp out yet another evil, politicians can pander to feminist sympathizers as well as religionists. And this is the driver for the latest trend sweeping Europe.

If you want to better understand prostitution from the minds of prostitutes, read The Honest Courtesan. This woman, a former prostitute, blogs about prostitution.

Of course, web cam workers who masturbate on cam engage in a kind of prostitution, trading pleasure for bank credit convertible into cash. So too, porno video sex workers engage in prostitution, working with other prostitutes and having their work recorded to video, also trading pleasure for bank credit convertible into cash. 

The advance of government toward totalitarianism never leads to progress. True progress arises from autonomy, or that which is self-rule.

Read more ...

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES AND THE STUPIDITY OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

Most Americans favor living by liberty over totalitarianism. Most Americans want to live within their own sphere of activity in which the law is content to leave them alone. Most Americans would much rather live this way than live by having government in every aspect of their lives, which we know as totalitarianism. 

The Libertarian Party is a tiny political party in the USA having been around for decades. The members of this party claim to be for liberty rather than totalitarianism. To most Americans that should sound pretty good since the Democrats and the Republicans seem to pass ever more laws, which looks ever more like American-branded totalitarianism. 

Yet it is little wonder why most Americans ignore the Libertarian Party? Big "L" LPers seem quite confused about liberty — the absence of law in the presence of government — and right — diminished liberty of others on one's behalf. 

Libertarians pride themselves on what they call the non-aggression principle (the NAP) though some call it the zero aggression principle (the ZAP). To them, the initiation of force against persons or property is illegitimate. Who could disagree?

A review of official Libertarian Party platform reveals a muddled mess and incoherency. Early on in the platform one can read this bit of Libertarian Party comedy  gold:

We believe ... that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships...

How do they propose to banish? Banishing requires force, that which is against the NAP / ZAP! To banish means to proclaim as outlaw, to forbid. It's late 1300s Old French into English.

What good anyone can find in the Libertarian Party platform is merely a re-wording of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, but a re-wording that lacks clarity. A deeper reading of the platform reveals troubling Libertarian Party thought.

Under the heading titled 3.5 Rights and Discrimination, the Libertarian Party reveals contradiction. In the second sentence, the party platform is:

"We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right.""

which follows the first sentence: 

"Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights."

There can be no right without duty. That is the reality of more than 799 years of Anglo-Norman and American jurisprudence. 

Obligation means duty. One must fulfill duty by either doing X or not doing X so that another can exercise one's right. That is jurisprudence.

The right to life is a natural right. The right to life imposes the duty on everyone else to not violate that right of anyone. The natural right to one's life imposes a duty upon all others to not murder.

Doing one's duty of not violating another's right fulfills one's duty. One can only enjoy the right of living, of not being murdered if everyone does his or her duty, fulfills his or her duty of not killing. 

If a right is inherent, it is natural. That which is natural is by birth. That which is inherent is closely connected as with those qualities arising from being born and alive.

Claiming that a natural right cannot ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that right and then claiming that people have inherent (natural) rights is contradiction. There can not be right without duty. It's impossibility.

If one supports the LP belief that a natural right cannot ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that right, then one must support the the idea of murdering anyone on a whim for any reason, any time in the absence of government and criminal law. From the LPs own manifesto, they reject natural rights because they reject natural duties.


If one supports 3.5 of the LP manifesto, that no one has duty to fulfill the natural right of another, then one supports anarchy. In anarchy, no one has duty not to kill another. Thus, no one has a natural right to life. Only under anarchy, does anyone not have any rights as no one has duties. 

Before there is government, there is society and before society, only individuals. If there were but one individual on earth, that one would be free to go and roam wherever, live wherever, eat whatever. He would be free even to kill himself. He would be right to do all of those acts.

Anyone can conceive of there being the best land on earth, the most productive, yielding the best food and the best climate.

As soon as two exist, there can be contention for that best land. As both have equal rights in themselves as described in the foregoing, both can not occupy the same land at the same time and derive the same benefit. 

One fix for this is for one to murder the other. As both have the right to live, with the advent of both, both have the duty to not murder the other. So while murder would solve one guy's problem, he could not do so without failing in his duty while at the same time violating the right of another in an egregious manner.

The only failing of this, of course, is that if only two existed, there would be no one left to punish the murderer, in any manner including banishment (ostracism) from those in society of property.

So rather than resort to murder, they could agree that one would take the next best land and the one taking the best land would compensate the one taking the second best.

Now we can see this scenario happening as more individuals arise on the earth. As each cannot occupy the same land at the same time and derive the same benefit, each succeeding one could agree with all others occupying better land to be compensated. The alternative is murder and the more who exist, the greater the scale of that murder.

However, if one murders another with better land, rejecting compensation, the rest who are in this society of property, where property means right of ownership and never the thing owned, could impose upon the one disrupting harmony, banishment at minimum or death at maximum.

It seems that some libertarians reject the belief that fulfilling duty means not doing an act as well as doing an act. One can fulfill a duty by not doing X.

You have a duty to not trespass on my land. You fulfill that duty every day you refrain from trespassing. You have a duty to not steal the fruit growing upon my trees. You fulfill that duty every day you refrain from stealing my fruit.

I have the right to have my land free from trespassers. I have the right to have my fruit not stolen by others.

My property, that is my right of ownership in my land and my fruit, makes it so, whether I live with others in society of property under customary law or in conjunction with others in society, also with government, which establishes civil law and criminal law.

Civil law requires court in administration of justice. It is a creature of legislators. Customary law, or law of society, that which proceeds government is a creature of agreed upon custom of persons. Where there is law, whether civil law or customary law, and where there are rights, there must be duties.

It's impossible to support natural rights and then reject natural duties. To do so is to be muddled in mind, to live illogically, to live absurdly.

LPers are free to reject reality and jurisprudence. Who should stop them? Who should violate their NAP/ZAP? 

It's no wonder why they can't make headway in America. Stupid is as stupid does or so said Forrest Gump. 

Read more ...

LAW VS JUSTICE. GOVERNMENT VS SOCIETY. POLITICS VS YOU.

The only legit reasons for government are to protect the individual and his property from a mob and to certify claims about property when in a society of property so that men can engage in trade, which is the purchase and sale of property, rather than war among each other. 

As always, the reason behind a society of strangers, which is what we have, is a society in property. Society of strangers arises because of one thing — property, which  means right of ownership and never the thing owned. The purpose of strangers banding together in society of property is to trade freely their right of ownership, their property, for money, which is the measure of contract, of human relations, in pursuit of profit.

All too often, too many believe the reason for government is to define laws. Yet, legit government does not exist for enforcement of law,  good or otherwise. Legit government is about the administration of justice. Justice arises in maintaining right and redressing wrongs.

Laws are unneeded for justice. Law is secondary and unessential. Customs are fine enough for justice. Custom is to society what law is to government. Each expresses the measure of men's insight of the principle of right and justice. 

Law helps to impart uniformity and certainty to the administration of justice. Law helps to protect the administration of justice from disturbing influence of improper motives of those entrusted to impart justice. Law helps to protect the administration of justice from errors of impartial judgment. However, the existence of law is optional and not obligatory.

Government evolves from society. Never does society evolve from government. Before government there is society. Before society there are only individuals. 

Society isn't built. Society is merely individuals as strangers who form association through property for mutual benefit of trade, self-interest and self-expression. The only society in which strangers can live is a society of property. Government springs forth to enlarge the circle of strangers.

The necessity of government arises because of rogues who feign willing participation in society, a society of property. Government must exist only to protect the individual from a mob who seek to dispossess him from his property. Government must exist to ensure truth claims about property. 

Illegitimate government usurps power and starts shuffling people's property against their wants for the sole purpose of maintaining power over all. So in all forms of illegitimate government you see socialistic, bureaucratic welfare, which, immorally retards man's progress as it inhibits individuals who receive such welfare from discovering who they are and what are their talents. 

All problems arise when some usurp power through government to advance themselves by stealing or impairing the property of others, rendering government no better than rogues.

The moving away from bare subsistence, which is poverty, is progress. All progress of humans through all time has been advanced by property put to use as capital to produce property traded as wealth along with the mitigation of risk in the production of ever more property, which means right of ownership and never the thing owned. 

The reward for overcoming loss with property at-risk is profit. It is a way for a people to ensure resources are being used properly and products being made that those who are efficient want.

Politics is the art of using rhetoric to steal property. Politicians and bureaucrats get their property by confiscating it from others. Politicians and their Agent Smiths who inject themselves into the process cause dislocation in resources  and products creation. Retrogression happens under illegitimate government. 

Mankind advances through individuals, property and the drive to hedge against prices and that alone. Mankind falls into retrogression when reverting to neo-tribalism in whatever form, such as self-conceit, pseudo-scientific socialism or totalitarian socialism, which all know as communism.


Americans live in society of property as the basis for a society of strangers is a society of property. The purpose of government is to protect the individual and his or her property from the mob and rogues. When government becomes the mob and rogues, it's over. 

The true debate is individualism and property or power and dictate. When confronting  the true debate, in short, reality — individualism and property or power and dictate — all get forced to see that those on the right are on the same spectrum as those on the left.

All political doctrines are doctrines of control. The spectrum of political doctrine looks like this, from Left to Right:

Communism ↔ Socialism ↔ Syndicalism ↔ Oligopolism ↔ Fascism

The debate of political doctrines is debate about which property should be impaired or stolen, who must suffer the consequences and who gets to do the the stealing and impairing  There is no room for individualism on that spectrum. The winning move, of course, is to jump off that spectrum.

In the USA, governments at all levels have become mob and rogues. Americans have fallen into serious retrogression over the last 153 years, with the majority of it coming in the last 85 or so.

Specific welfare — paying for food and medicine for individuals by impairing property of others — rather than general welfare — ports, roads, bridges — is what has done it, along with legal tender cash.

Through the power of specific welfare Crony Politics, Crony Governance and Crony Regulatory Capture arise. Yet, through rhetorical appeals of envy and jealousy, capitalism gets blamed being misspoken as crony capitalism. Parroting the misguided phrase spoken from ignorance — crony capitalism — fails to do service to anyone. The horrible, wrong label — crony capitalism — implies there is something wrong with capitalism, when never there is. 

Capitalism is the doctrine of property (right of ownership) used to create wealth (things that have buying power in trade). Capitalism means living by using property to produce a surplus of more property and hoping to sell that surplus for a price such that the sum of sales exceeds the cost to gain those sales.

Without capitalism, there isn't an economy. It's impossible to have an economy without capitalism. Capitalism has nothing to do with politics. 

Read more ...

LIVING RHETORIC TO GET AN UNEARNED PAY RAISE

A wage is a price and adheres  to the invariant Law of Prices  — the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of offers set the price. 

Employers are sellers of cash and credit who buy skills through time, which we call labor, or the "poor man's capital".

Workers are buyers of cash and credit, which we call wages and are sellers of expressed skills through time.

In most job markets, inter-employer competition has employers engage in English auctions for workers, while inter-worker competition has workers engage in Dutch auctions for jobs. 

In an English auction, the highest bidder wins. In a Dutch auction, the lowest bidder wins.

Where the winning bidders of employers and winning bidders of work seekers intersect, that is the clearing price, which, when it involves work, we call it a wage.

Both workers and employers get constrained by the Axiom of Profit — the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production, otherwise the producer goes to ruin. 

In short, employers can bid up for workers only where what gets sold as the product from the workers exactly equals the cost to produce it. Likewise, workers can bid down for work only where what they get paid equals what it costs them to live.

There are too many no-skilled Americans Dutch-bidding themselves and not enough employers who need workers bad enough to train those workers or provide them capital precisely because there is too much regulation like minimum wage laws, workers' comp, social security; and too much welfare giving unearned buying power, both which interfere in the fair, just working of markets.

JOBS ARE SCARCE? WHAT?!

Someone shouted at me and cried, "Jobs are scarce!"

Jobs aren't scarce. Nothing is scarce. 

The earth is superabundant in natural resources, awash in resources, in fact.

The economy has the exact number of jobs needed given the distortions created by politicians by subsidizing inefficient production and transferring unearned buying power for protected classes of goods.

In short, jobs aren't scarce. Rather, there is a superabundance of talentless people who offer nothing in exchange to those who gain buying power by offering each other things wanted in exchange. 

Read more ...