(This was originally published at: EYEAM4ANARCHY)

“Government Is Not Your Friend” 

Learn why government is not merely inefficient and corrupt, but can never and will never be conducive to civilized society.

Larken Rose will be coming to Las Vegas Saturday, August 2nd, to do a talk about the government and its true effects on society. The talk will start at 5:00 p.m. (but feel free to be early) lasting until 7:00pm and will be held at “The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf” (4550 S. Maryland Parkway) right across from the main entrance of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (see below for map). Food Not Bombs Las Vegas, a grassroots mutual aid group that reduces waste and supports the local community by preparing food that would otherwise be thrown out and sharing it with hungry people, will be sponsoring the event and Nevada Cop Block will be hosting it.

Larken Rose is a well known Anarchist writer and political activist. He’s also pretty well known for having challenged the legitimacy of income taxes and for subsequently being sent to prison. In addition, he has been published on the Cop Block site, including a post and video entitled “When Should You Shoot a Cop?” That video was the subject of a lot of controversy as a result of it’s provocative name and subject, which consists of asking at what point people are justified in physically opposing the actions of an oppressive government. It should be a very informative and entertaining evening.

Larken plans his talks to be at a level that is good even for the 99.9% of the population who haven’t really thought much about the basis of statism before. So if you’re in the area, find a way to bring along a statist or two! It will be casual, fun and comfortable (it’s happening at a coffee shop, after all).

Plus, it will be free. HOWEVER, while he doesn’t like charging people to attend the talks and presentations he gives, he also doesn’t like being destitute, and it does cost him money to get from one place to another around the country, which is one reason he doesn’t plan on any more speaking tours after this trip (and that is another reason you shouldn’t miss this one). So, if you plan on attending–or maybe even if you don’t–and want to chip in a few bucks so the thing isn’t a loss for him, he would very much appreciate that. It’s also a good way to encourage other speakers and personalities to add a Las Vegas stop to their schedules.

If you are so inclined you can send contributions in one of two ways (or even both, if that’s what you want to do):

via PayPal to:
[email protected]

via Bitcoin to:


  1. Here we have another example of the glaring lie that is Copblock. “We’re not anti-police.” Says the about page, and yet here is an advertisement for an anti-government talk. Police are part of one arm of the government, so if the stance is anti-government, it’s obviously anti-police. Pete will just keep going on with his lie, though, hoping it’ll become truth if he keeps telling it.

    1. Some cop block folks, like Ian Freeman, are moderates who “hate the sin and love the sinner.” Others, like Christopher Cantwell, and myself, passionately hate coproaches.

      Remember, Cop Block is decentralized. As the man who co-originated the Cop Block idea, and who presumably registered the domain name of this site, he can legitimately state what his particular take on Cop Block is.

        1. There are lots of cop block groups that do their own thing and that are not managed in any way by Ademo or Pete.

          1. Bullshit. Eyre and Adamo call the shots, pull the strings and teach them how to be subversive and hypocritical and encourages their violence. ONLY WHEN does the bad behavior point back directly to them do they disavow any link. Want examples? Here’s a couple… The “Ladies” of Cop Block calendar theft and Cantwell’s follies.

            Makes me wonder why Eyre and Ademo rarely, if ever, stand up for themselves… Oh wait, I know. It’s because you indoctrinated street sheep (or wannabe keyboard libertarians) do it for them. Sound a lot like the same shit that went on with the Branch Davidians and Jonestown.

          2. However it was organized, I am reasonably sure that you and your brothers in blue would complain. Whether it’s a woman being raped at a traffic stop, or someone being shot in the back of the head while handcuffed, you “people” act as if ANYONE who complains about these things are the bad guys, rather than the perpetrators. That is insanity.

          3. I’m actually one of the good guys. When I see something I don’t like, I do something about it. Similar to t, I have had my share of officers fired for bad choices.

          4. Are you denying that a cop accountability organization that had a zero tolerance policy for any talk of initiatory violence, encouraged discipline, etc., would STILL cause mega-butthurt for most cops?

            Why do so many cops go apeshit when you video YOUR OWN traffic stop?

            Why do so many cops take ANY SUGGESTION that they be held accountable and treated like everyone else, as an act of hostility?

          5. Because you are not feeding into their shared delusions of grandeur. So it’s perceived as a direct threat to their ego.

          6. Hate : Yo guy….here’s a bulletin for you. We have been recording traffics stops for years and years. Now….I know from reading you comments here that YOU don’t really understand that. We seldom release any if that video. (Most if the videos that get posted or broadcast are the results of various lawsuits from real news media) The reason for that is….what happens between me and that person is that persons business. Not yours. For us to put it out would severely hinder that person ability to get a fair hearing.

            I’ve made this prediction before but I will repeat it for you. I have successful sued 3 different subjects for defamation about false complaints filed against me. I certainly wasn’t the first and I certain wasn’t the only one and I won’t be the last one to do so. This site recently had an article discussing how Kansas just passed a law making it a crime to file a false complaint. Understand that trend. And that’s just the police. With the proliferation of cameras and phones….the exposures of everyone will only broaden. My prediction is that the courts will eventually begin to side with privacy rights. And I’d bet on it that civil suits against those that use the images of others for making money will end up,on the losing end. There have been some interesting courts cases that have gone against the police recently. They are about stretching privacy concerns into areas that really aren’t private. Realize what that means….if something that was before public to the police is now viewed as private….it’s going to be seen as something private to you as well.
            It’s just a prediction…..I guess I’ll wait and see.

          7. You clearly did not understand what I stated.

            Once again, cops go apeshit when someone videos his or her OWN traffic stop.

          8. I highly doubt the courts are going limit the 1st amendment on limiting recording police in public. Anything that comes from the courts that does, will be overturned by SCOTUS.

          9. Those who go “apeshit” against someone recording their stop displays poor judgement and deserves and corrective action – including termination. I don’t support that at all.

            Again, speaking for myself, I couldn’t care less if the person I’ve detained records the goings on. Nor do I mind an outsider recording it so long as they’re well at a safe distance and a bona-fide news organizaton (we have strict privacy laws that stood the test of the Supreme Court).

          10. one does not need to be part of a news organization to record you. As long as they stay away, they can record. That’s why all the federal courts have chimed in including a recent one from the first on recording a traffic stop!

          11. Some coproaches define “safe distance” as a half mile or so away, in a clear attempt to cover up their aggressive, shady actions.

          12. Let me guess either they were involved with drugs or drug dealing or else they were pocketing money off-the-books by stealing or fraud. Pretty much the only things cops will hold other cops to account for it seems like.

          13. Everything from drugs to civil rights violations.

      1. And on the about page of this very site it states in bold text, for emphasis, “we do not hate cops.” Either it is a central tenet of the Copblock philosophy, or it’s not. Apparently, it’s only a central tenet when the violent commentary found on this site is outed to the public at large.

        He can say what he likes about what he thinks Copblock is all he wants, but when actions don’t match the words, well the actions are going to be more relevant, as they are truer than any statement he could make. So every anti-government post, every anti-police post, every comment that calls for violence against police that he does not denounce, is showing that he supports a stance contrary to what he claims.

        1. So where does copblock say it’s not “anti-police”? Link? Anything? Where is the call for violence? Can you quote it?

        2. Does the owner of a message board have to make a disclaimer for every single post that he disagrees with?

          1. Every post? No, but when there is a common thread that stands in direct opposition to that owner’s claims, it turns those claims to a lie.

            Take for example Pete’s recent diatribe against a Yahoo article, he points to his about page here, and claims the author of that Yahoo article didn’t do even basic research, claiming the opinion in the article is based on a Facebook post, a video, and a submission, but ignores the endless calls for violence in the commentary of this site.

            It’s all part and parcel of the whole package, and like his own choice of language, is a blatant and dishonest attempt to color things in a rosey light.

          2. I could turn that around, and ask you why Cop Block haters are so desperate to smear ANYTHING that has the slightest wiff of police accountability. Why do so many people in this “profession” have something against being held accountable? Do they think that they rule over us?

            Do you really not see how eager they appear to be to get away with all of the heinous shit that they’ve been caught doing in recent years, and that that makes them the bad guys?

          3. What cop block haters? Is categorizing every action by police officers as acts of aggression point toward a desire for accountability? When this site actually starts upholding it’s stated goal, of holding individuals accountable for their actions, then maybe there’d be merit to arguing that this site was anything more than a place to bitch about a speeding ticket or to go and place a bunch of “it’s time to start killing cops” type comments on to stories.

            See, what you are missing is that so many here engage in the policy of one guy’s guilty, so they’re all guilty. Some officers have gone off the reservation, yes, and many have resisted some efforts at achieving greater accountability. However, this site, by the stories it chooses to publish, demonstrates zero desire for accountability

          4. What you’re missing is that there are plenty of cops who go apeshit when someone pulled over for speeding merely videos the interaction as s/he hands the cop the driver’s license, registration, etc. They will claim that they did not consent to being videoed (even though they are the ones initiating the contact), or that the camera is a gun, etc.

            So even merely videoing YOUR OWN encounter when THEY initiate said encounter, causes a lot of cops to throw hissy fits.

            Are you denying that a huge percentage of cops take ANY suggestion of holding them accountable as an act of hostility, and rather than seeing themselves as public servants, instead see themselves as overlords?

          5. I am denying your assertion that a huge percentage of cops take any suggestion of holding them accountable as an act of hostility. What evidence do you have to support that claim of a huge percentage or your claim of any suggestion for accountability?

          6. I watch videos. I read comments on cop sites like policeone.com. I read about the mafia-like nature that saturates cop culture.

          7. So, no concrete evidence to point to? Why am I not surprised?

          8. There is a load of concrete evidence. Research the “blue wall of silence.” Research cop unions, which will defend cops no matter how heinous and illegal their actions are.

          9. If there’s a load of concrete evidence in regards to a huge percentage of police being against any suggestion of accountability present it.

          10. And just how is that evidence of a huge percentage of police being against any suggestion of accountability? There are no articles on why accountability is bad, and even if every comment was against accountability, how would that point to a huge percentage of police being against accountability. What percentage of police actually read police one?

          11. Read the psychopathic comments.

          12. I’ll just refer you to my last response, because this doesn’t even begin to address any of my questions.

          13. Hate: Clearly you either don’t read PoliceOne.com or you can’t understand it or you simply lie about what is posted there. If you’ll note….the articles on THAT site are neutral. They feature stories about officer who do it right, officers who did it wrong, opinions pieces that are instructional in both the law and in tactics.
            Now…THIS site sometimes features stories about the same events as that one does. The difference tends to be that PoliceOne features the content from the original story without edit. This site….either edits the story directly or more than likely will link to a different site that has done the editing.

            Now for you to either not see that….or to not say that….is on you. I won’t call you a liar…..I’ll just call you very inaccurate.

          14. A site where only cops can comment and the comments are censored before you even make one is “neutral”. OK guy, nice try.

          15. You’re not barred from reading the articles and comments.

          16. You have to be a verified cop to post on policeone, and there are loads of posts supporting cops who rape women during traffic stops, shoot handcuffed people in the back of the head, etc.

          17. Show us one, please.

          18. And then when you ask what the difference is between America and “police state” they say it’s because we have freedom of speech yet literally about every other day there’s a new video of cops abusing someone to retaliate for free speech activity up on PINAC.

          19. When people like yourself ask what the difference is, the mark tends to move. There is no consistent definition for what a police state is. It’s just like the videos on PINAC, the bulk of them are not of police abusing or harassing anyone, unless you shift your definitions of what abuse and harassment are, a common tactic amongst your compatriots.

          20. No, it’s not shifting of standards. If I or anyone else were to target people for gang intimidation or assault for exercising free speech then it would be aggression also. That’s why I don’t do that. And most people probably also wouldn’t normally. So I believe it is you who is shifting standards. If any private, non-costumed individual were to engage in the same types of violence and intimidation we see regularly from the police on this site or PINAC, would you characterize it the same?

          21. You missed the point I was making entirely. Those of your same view point continually enter the conversation with questions and statements based on definitions for terms that are clearly different from the actual definition, as in how you define government, or alter your definitions on the basis of need, such as using police state without clearly defined parameters.

            Here’s an interesting question, is not intimidation a form of free speech and free expression? Why or why not?

            At what point does a police interaction become intimidation, and are all physical responses by police to be considered assault?

            How am I shifting standards? I believe that assault is assault no matter who does it, I have never said anything to the contrary. Unless, of course, you are starting from the point of all police interactions are an initiation of violence.

          22. Not everything the police do is aggression in itself necessarily. They do perform some legitimate services. But if “protection from crime” is a legit service, and I think most can agree it is, then why can’t that service be provided on a value-for value basis like any other service? When you have the violently enforced monopoly at the institutional level that is where the perverse incentives come into play where you incentivize the police to engage in predatory behavior.

          23. Hate: Speaking only for me….I’m not trying to smear anything. I want truth. The edited videos and proven untrue stories that are posted here paint a false picture of reality.

            As they say….the proof is in the pudding. Guys like myself, 31, CommonSenss…..now call for violence. The info that we give…the “advice” that we give, limits and/or even eliminates police contact. We want you to stay out of trouble. The typical CBer advice from the likes of RAD, and the fraud is designed to get people into more contact, to lengthen hat contact. They are using the ignorant as pawns in a proxy war. We are trying to keep people out of trouble. At the end of the day….it’s really that simple.

          24. “Contact” is necessary to protect an innocent third party that the thugs in blue are riding roughshod over.

          25. Hate: Wait…..let’s all make sure we got that little nugget straight:
            YOU say that contact with the police is necessary to protect innocent their parties.
            So you WANT police contact? Then why are you bitching when it occurs?

          26. I want us to contact them so that they can be utterly defeated via information and other means.

          27. Speaking strictly for myself…

            When I have an interaction where my hands are tied, I have no choice but to follow the law or the judge’s order and cite or arrest. But, where I have discretion? I’m gonna choose the best route for both myself and the person I’ve detained. USUALLY that’s the simplest, least severe charge I can apply (say, in a stop for speeding) or a warning if the person I’ve detained is cooperative, calm and treats me like a human. Or in some cases, the person, like in the case of a minor, is gonna get a far more effective punishment from his or her family (assuming the family isn’t going to abuse the child).

            I really REALLY don’t want to do all the paperwork, transport, and reports involved in arresting a person. Then there’s court. Sure it’s overtime but if it’s on my day off, I’d rather be at home with my family.

      2. Hate: well who are you? This is the first time I’ve seen you post anything and it’s only about a guy who openly advocates violence (as do you).

        1. I don’t owe you anything.

    2. “Sikko • 8 hours ago

      Here we have another example of the glaring lie that is Copblock. “We’re not anti-police.””

      Can you cite quote where copblock has ever actually said that? “We’re not anti-police.”?

  2. The guy has a criminal record. He stopped paying his taxes and went to prison for income tax evasion. After his 18 months in prison, he came home and made that idiotic video “When to shoot a cop”. I read that his home town police found out about it and labeled him “dangerous” and “off center”. He then posted another video that reverses everything he said in the first video. He is one of those government conspiracy nuts. Leave it to copblock to continue supporting criminals to get their message across.

    1. Since when is avoiding being robbed immoral?

      1. Guess what? Paying your taxes just like everyone else isn’t being robbed. Lets all not pay taxes so fire fighters wont come and save your house from burning down, and all of the roads can go to shit. Copblock just lost alot of stock in my book by supporting this idiot.

        1. Let’s see how could people possibly put out fires without violently threatening peaceful people to force them to pay?

          1. RAD: What? Even from you…..a real master of the dumb comment….that one is truly dumb.
            Explain what that is even supposed to mean.

          2. His “medication” was in full effect.

          3. More likely he took too much again.

          4. If you didn’t get it the first time not wasting time on it.

        2. A person is a person is a person, and if it’s robbery for one person to force money out of one’s possession, then it’s robbery for anyone else to do so.

    2. Exactly why I don’t want to be affiliated with activists like this guy. It is one thing to want to make a change, but when you start hanging out with tax dodgers and morons talking about when to shoot cops, you are just begging to be added to a domestic terrorist watch list.

      1. K so go be a good little obedient slave and stop reading copblock so you don’t get in trouble with daddy government.

      2. So if I want to build an orphanage, you’re cool with me sticking a gun in your face and telling you what you “owe” me, and lecturing you that you’re “cheating” if you refuse to pay me?

        1. Who forced you to be a good Sam and open an orphanage? Shitty example even for people like you.

          1. Who “forced” you to extort peaceful people? You do it cuz it’s what the bureaucrats pay you for.

          2. The very laws that I have to follow. So by that and your residence in this country, you agree to abide by them just by living here. And as I have said many times… If you don’t agree with the laws, get off your butt and do something. Or move.

          3. Being born does not constitute consent, and we are doing a lot of things. Cop Block is just one of them.

          4. Such as?

          5. We do cop blocking, jury nullification activism, educating friends and relatives, etc.

          6. It does when you voluntarily stay. But put your bitcoins where your mouth is… What have YOU done? I’m willing to bet a month’s salary that you’ve done nothing but sit around and complain.

          7. No, it doesn’t. The state is illegitimate, and I am not under any obligation to leave.

          8. No. You move.

          9. Don’t have to. I agree with what I abide by and enforce. I don’t mind paying my fair share in taxes. Besides… I just had new siding put on my house and a new driveway put in. Gotta pay those off, first.

          10. “Besides… I just had new siding put on my house and a new driveway put in. Gotta pay those off, first”
            Exactly. And if coppering didn’t pay enough to make the bills you wouldn’t be doing it.

          11. Wrong. I’d sill do it. Never really needed the job. Thankfully, you haven’t a clue about my financial situation and I retire soon.

          12. Congratulations.

          13. Who forced your employers to create the welfare state?

          14. The idiots like you hat voted for them you tool. Look at our health care system. He ran on it as a plank in his campaign. Goofs like you voted for him and he enacted what he said he was going to do. He didn’t lie to you about it….told you up front and still got elected.

            I noticed though how you ignored how nothing you are talking about has anything at all to do,with the police.

          15. I don’t vote, shit-for-brains.

            Once again, cops enforce the edicts of politicians. Some of those edicts relate to the welfare state,

          16. If you don’t vote, what cause do you have to complain. If you don’t engage in the process, that’s your fault.

          17. If you don’t participate in organized violence, then the violence is your fault because you didn’t participate. And you have no cause to complain about the violence because you didn’t perpetrate the violence. Interesting theory.

          18. No, but nice try. I see you’re another one of those government=violence types

          19. Um, ya. What government doesn’t get money by making conditional threats such as “pay or get shot” or “pay or go to jail” ?
            If not all governments are violent, then there should be at least one you can name, right? Aside from getting money from conditional threats of violence, what do all governments have in common? If government ≠ violence then what do they ALL have in common other than getting money through making violent threats?

          20. You make it sound like that if someone misses one single tax payment he or she is jailed. You realize it takes years for it to get to that point, right?

            But hey.. If you don’t wanna pay taxes, there are 15 other countries you can live in that are completely tax-free. I’ll even help you pack.

          21. Not only years, but a significant amount of dollars before jail is even an option

          22. Right, as government has evolved to the modern version, they have had to:
            1. Cut out more and more the blatantly religious legal theories due to less religious hegemony in society.
            2. Hide the gun in the room and make it less obvious as to their violent nature. So instead of the pharaoh having a guy whip you while you work now the whip is usually only hinted at but rarely used. Also they have found it is more efficient to let the private sector do more or less what it wants, but then just extort a percentage than to centrally plan everything. Because freer markets are more efficient.

          23. Wait, which modern version of government? There are hundreds of variations. Are you contending that all governments are exactly the same? You’ll have to provide support for that.

            As for those points you made on what government has had to do, ask North Koreans if that is actually the case, again not all governments are the same.

          24. Well, as I pointed out to RAD, the township that I live in is one such government, since my township only receives money for services rendered, and it’s only course of action for refusal to pay is through civil court actions.

            A voluntaryist society would be another type of government that isn’t violent.

          25. Really? It has no sales tax property tax or any of that?

          26. Nope, the township has no authority to institute property tax, which is the pervue of the county, or sales tax, which is the pervue of the state. Besides, there are no conditional threats behind a sales tax, as my state doesn’t levy sales tax on items of necessity (clothes and food), and the only way to avoid paying a sales tax would be to steal, where I would be punished for theft, not for failure to pay sales tax. Property tax is only slightly different, and only applies to property owners, and I rent.

          27. That guy in New York who was choked to death was being accused of selling untaxed cigs. Generally the merchant is the one who is threatened – if they don’t collect tax at point of sale they risk trouble like having their business shut down or worse.

          28. He was accused of selling loose cigarettes, it wasn’t a tax violation that was being acted upon, it was a different law altogether. It doesn’t start at shut down or worse, those are merely the harshest penalties.

            I can only assume by your reasoning, that any sort of responsible parenting, wherein a parent imposes punishments for behavior, is child abuse, since the harshest punishments of being put into time out or a spanking are akin to a person being jailed or shot for breaking the law.

          29. Ya, basically. I would never spank a child. If you deal with kids you really should almost never have to threaten them especially since your negotiating position as an adult is so much stronger. Like if kids are going nuts at the store running out into the parking lot or whatever just explain to them that if they don’t get it together you’re not taking them to the store next time and that it’s just a consequence of their behavior (not the same as punishment) – it usually works way better than yelling at them or trying to intimidate them.

          30. You obviously have never raised a child. Giving warning that a continued action will result in a spanking is no more a threat than telling a child they will get burned trying to grab items off a hot stove. Try your solution on a 4 year old, and see how far that gets you. In fact, hang out at the local Walmart near the check out for long periods, you’ll see your plan of action being used, compare the effectiveness of it to the effectiveness of providing real and immediate consequences, or threats as you will label them. Guess which one ends the tantrum first, and guess which one leads to the tantrums not cropping up in the first place.

          31. Yes. Do your research.

          32. I am doing research! Would be interested to know more like what the name of this place is and where I can learn more about how this type of government is funded.

          33. Im not sure to be honest. I only did a quckie Google search.

          34. I live in a rural Pennsylvania township, we have a shared police department, shared with three other townships, and a volunteer fire company. The fire department is funded by a combination of county/state funds and what monies they raise through various fundraising campaigns, and is not controlled by the township. My township pays a nominal fee for police services to the township that is responsible for the police force, a fee passed on to the residents of my township as part of the costs for the services the township provides. Those services being trash collection and providing water and sewage services.

          35. Right, those services are still being provided on a compulsory rather than voluntary, free-market basis. And you can’t negate an act of violence just by shuffling money around. The township is a subsidiary under the organizational umbrella of the “state” government. So it’s still dependent on the “state”-actors’ extortion scheme for its funding. Whether you call it extortion, a “fee” or a fine or a tax or a levy. It’s services being provided on a violent compulsory basis.

          36. No, those services are completely voluntary. For example, my neighbor has a well and a septic tank, and because of this pays nothing to the township for water or sewage. He recently began trash services voluntarily, as it became less cost effective to run his trash to the dump, due to gas prices. The township doesn’t receive funds from federal, state, or county levels, as it doesn’t need them for the role it serves. The township government’s only real role is to coordinate services, services that are voluntary at that. Beyond that, the township serves the function of designating official observance times, which only really falls to when the official trick or treat time is, which allows for the community to properly prepare and have a safe experience.

          37. I must research this more, wow.

          38. A voluntaryist society doesn’t have a government.

          39. If it’s a society, it has a government. A voluntaryist society would simply eschew any organized government.

          40. A government is a coercive monopoly. In a voluntaryist society, by definition, there is no coercive monopoly.

          41. No, government is the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed. And what does governed mean? It means ro conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people). So, what does all that mean? It means that in a voluntaryist society, you would have a voluntaryist government, which would be a system predicated on voluntary interactions an the NAP. The NAP is a system that governs not only the individual, but the entire society. A true anarchy, one where no government existed, would simply be man returning to his origins, only the strong would survive, as there is no governing principal, leaving man to operate by his own desire without care for whether harm was inflicted on another.

          42. I don’t believe in voting.

          43. hate: Clearly you don’t believe in rational and logical thought either.
            Look guy….I don’t care about your stance, politics, ideas. YOU engage in our society by utilizing to fruits of the society. You use our streets and sidewalks. Drink the water and use the electricity.
            The pure idiot that was Alvin who posted his hate here all the time used to want to try and play that he didn’t engage in our economy and society. All while using our roads, and the products transported upon them.
            Even Ted Kazinsky engage in our society….even as much as he tried not to. He used the roads…the post office…to commit his cowardly crimes.

            So be an idiot. Don’t vote.
            Or be smart….work on your local level for real change. Those local and state leaders are the ones that effect your life every day. IF it is as you think…that so many. Embrace your ideas and ways….you should be able to effect that level of government with ease.
            More likely though….you’ll find that few people agree with you. Look no further than the “shire” to see. All those activists. Rejected by the overwhelming majority of those around them.

            But you keep standing on the outside. Keep yelling and screaming. Keep looking dirty and smelling bad. All you really do is make people scream for more and more of me because they want you kept away.

          44. Voting is for idiots:

            (1) It is cowardly in that it gets others to do your dirty work.

            (2) We all own ourselves; any voting to deprive others of their rights is therefore illegitimate.

            (3) There are so many people who have been brainwashed by the media and schools, that there is no way that sane voters can out-vote them.

            (4) The ruling class rigs the counting of votes in any case.

          45. Of course you didn’t. Way to fight the system.

          46. There are many superior ways of fighting the system, shit-for-brains.

        2. Hate:
          What a moronic stance.
          Has the US government gotten to big? Sure. But that brings up a myriad of questions but lets boil it down to 2.
          Why? And what does that have to do with the police?

          Hmmm. Big question. But the best answer is because people keep asking for it. We want universal health care. Ok….that takes lots of money and grows government and taxes. Better roads and infrastructure? Again….lots of money. And then there are the growing socials programs to deal with the homeless, the drug treatment programs, people who want their college education paid for by taxpayers.
          So yeah, maybe it’s too big. But why is that ?

          How does that involve the police? Not much at all. While we are the most visible finger of government, local PDs and Sheriffs have almost nothing to do with government on the Federal level. We deal with State, county and local laws and ordinances. If you don’t like those…..they should be within reach of you if you can gather enough support you and change those laws. Look to Washignton and Colorado. They wanted marijunana….they got it. Of course, now those states are dealing with other issues that have come along with those decisions that will grow government and cost lots of money.

          Things have costs. Decisions have consquences and outcomes.

          1. Ya, government made the grass grow.

          2. Again…,huh? Guy…..just say no to drugs.

          3. It’s not a moronic stance at all. A person is a person is a person, and if it’s robbery for one person to do something, then it’s robbery for anyone else to do that something.

          4. No guy….it’s moronic. Taxes aren’t anything like a robbery. Let me guess…..your like 17 right?

          5. Let’s see… making conditional threats like “pay or get shot” or “pay or go to jail”. What does conditional threats coupled with a demand for money have in common with robbery? Hmmm, let’s think about that….

          6. You’re way off on my age.

            Explain how forcing someone to part with their possessions isn’t theft.

  3. The beauty of all this is that while they’re free to say what the do, it’s all just wishful thinking. None of it will ever become reality in this or the next several lifetimes in this country.

    1. We’ll see about that, democide fanboy.

      The unpopularity of the state has grown immensely in the last few years, while voluntaryism has exploded.

      1. While that may be… Nobody (not even Eyre and his cronies) are doing anything constructive about it. It’s all a lot of subversion, bias and outright lies.

        When I see some real movement from your camp(s), I’ll take notice. But right now they’re little more than gnats hovering around the picnic.

        1. The message is spreading, and the ideology is being adopted by more people.

          As the older generations die off, and younger generations become more pro-liberty, the population becomes more pro-liberty/anti-slavery.

          1. Aint gonna happen anytime soon.

          2. Already happening. Your “ideas” are wrong. It’s why you have to use logical fallacies every time you try to explain them. And this is the information age. Eventually people will see through the bullshit. Remember where they said that you (gov) get their “just powers” from the “consent” of the “governed”? You have no just powers because all they are is violence in reality. You can’t violently “force” “consent”. “Obey or move.” Where does the “consent” enter into it?

          3. The asswipes and their idiot sycophants use a collectivist notion of “consent” in that we are all said to consent when a certain percentage of the population votes a certain way.

            So I ask them, if a plane crashed in the ocean, and ten people survive and make it to an island, and six of them vote to torture and kill the other four for fun, does the majority vote make it right?

          4. To make your analogy more like how the government really works it would be 2 or 3 attacking the other 7 or 8 and then demanding capital or else just outright enslaving them. The idea that democracy = majority rule is one of the biggest myths of the modern version of statism.

          5. I am undermining their idealized perception of the alleged righteousness and legitimacy of majoritarian rule.

          6. Nice word salad there junior.

          7. Right, even as a theory it’s a fallacious concept based on a fallacious appeal to numbers.

          8. Democracy does equal majority rule, that’s the way democracy works. It is also a sure fire way to achieve oppression of the minority, which is why America’s founding fathers steered clear of a straight forward democracy and chose to frame the federal government in the form of a democratic republic.

            This is the first major fallacy that has to be dealt wgen discussing the way things actually are. If you are so misinformed, or unable to grasp that simple conceptual difference, what more can you be wrong about. Further, if you premise is built on that basic misunderstanding/misinformation, then your whole premise falls apart.

          9. No, from the beginning the “right” to vote was was offered to a minority of the population. Obama was elected by about 65 million out of about 300 million total so less than a quarter of the population. The remaining majority have his “reign” forced onto them whether or not they consent. That is actually quite typical for “democracy”. That’s how it actually works in the real world. I get that the theory is that it’s two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner but it’s really more like 2 or 3 wolves deciding among themselves what to eat and then telling the remaining 7 or 8 sheep that they consented to be dinner.

          10. The right to vote was given to those considered citizens and of an age of accountability, this was still a majority of the population.

            Obama winning on the vote of 65 million doesn’t matter, the majority of citizens have the right to vote, choosing to not make use of that right means that they are fine with whoever those that do take advantage of that right choose.

            How it actually works in the real world is that the majority of eligible voters are either too lazy to bother or “don’t believe in voting.” In either case, they are choosing to have no say. So, the correct way to express your analogy would be a wolf deciding what’s for dinner while 3 sheep stand around saying “I don’t care, whatever you choose.”

          11. It is happening right now.

            Marijuana legalization was not taken seriously in the 1980s. Now, it is happening.

          12. That doesn’t promote your agenda. That’s been an issue for decades.

          13. The right to put what you want into your own body, since you own your own body, is very much a part of the voluntaryist agenda.

          14. Right the issue isn’t even about “drugs”. It’s about the violence which has been mitigated from putting peaceful people in jail to just taking their money to use to build more indoctrination centers with their compulsory flag worshiping brainwashing ritual. For if not for the pervasive indoctrination who would ever believe in this statist religion?

          15. Each statist who dies of old age, inches us closer to such a society.

          16. …and who’s gonna work?

            You can only have so many bong shops and coffee houses.

            Like that video 3 days by “afterburner” – someone is gonna have to work in the slaughter house, build and maintain roads and all other other facets of your utopia you forget.

            I read that the number one skill set that will be needed in the next 10 years will be “skilled trades” – pipefitters, welders, iron workers. I don’t see alot of those types at open air festivals and rallies.

            Sorry junior, your skills at using a mouse won’t help you when the power goes out.

          17. You fucking moron, I have a masters in engineering.

          18. Dude…you are dreaming and delusional. Those that you are embracing…those younger generations are the ones with their hands out. They are e ones who won’t or can’t do for themselves. Those older generations….they are the doers.

        2. P.S. Since when is Ron Paul’s huge success in 2008 and 2012 – for a political outsider – not “real movement?” Politics in this country is so extremely rigged (from the indoctrination from the schools, media, and entertainment industry, to the way that the laws are blatantly skewed towards the two major parties, etc.) it’s not even funny. Therefore, what Ron Paul has achieved, as such a contrarian, is nothing short of amazing.

          1. I don’t hear much about or from Ron Paul… Hmm… Wonder why.

          2. Because the news you watch is govco propaganda cronyism.

          3. I watch and read news from a variety of sources. Not just sites or stations/podcasts with a single vison.

          4. It could have something to do with the fact that he retired from politics.

            He is doing work with his various organizations now.

          5. He is doing all kinds of activism right now. A few days ago, he recommended abolition the CIA.

          6. Since when is a person that has held public office for a total of 24 years a political outsider?

            What huge success did Ron Paul have?

            Ron Paul is not all that contrarian, particularly in regards to our political system.

          7. Ron Paul faced a lot of criticism from the neocunts who infested his party. There is strong evidence that he has been a closet voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist.

            His huge success was spreading the message.

          8. So, facing criticism is what makes a person a political outsider despite holding office for 24 years?

            What message? It wasn’t that huge of a success if anybody has to ask.

          9. Being an anarchist makes him an outsider.

            I was referring to the message of liberty.

          10. Except, he’s not an anarchist, neither is he a political outsider, political outsiders don’t hold office for 24 years. Political outsiders aren’t multiple time candidates for either major political party’s presidential nomination.

            The message of liberty? The one that’s envisioned by the republican party? The party he refused to leave, since a political outsider has a giant uphill battle to maintain a political office, that message of freedom?

            Ron Paul has said a lot of good things, it’s just too bad he hasn’t put his money where his mouth is, which is just another example of Ron Paul being anything but a political outsider.

          11. In an interview, he did state that he would like to live in a society wherein all interactions are voluntary.

            I am talking about the message that we all own ourselves, and should be able to do anything we want, so long as the action in question doesn’t harm anyone.

            Ron Paul had to run as a Republican in order to achieve is goal, thanks to the duopoly rigging the system with biased laws.

          12. And yet despite having the ability to work toward that, he went along to get along….actions are more telling than words.

            Had to run as a republican to achieve his goal? Funny he came as close to his goal running as a republican in 2008 and 2012 as he he did running as a libertarian in 1988.

            Ron Paul, like most other politicians is just a bag of wind. Gary Johnson did more work to advance the ideas of liberty than Ron Paul with a single presidential campaign.

          13. He did what he had to do to get elected (regarding the presidential runs, you will see that the numbers in 2008 and 2012 were way more favorable than 1988). I am not a fan of electoral politics, and never said that I applaud his strategy.

          14. Further demonstrating how little of a political outsider he is.

          15. …I bet you like Star Trek.

          16. And slipping the NDAA vote.

        3. …And that’s just it. They rant and rant, and yet their tiny numbers can’t even bar the dreaded Bearcat from coming to their town.

          1. You must think that dissidents who get tortured and killed (along with their families) in North Korea, are scum who have it coming. Popularity determines morality in your mind, after all.

          2. Nice angle, I see you skipped the Nazi, and went all “Kim Jong.”

            Interesting, but if the viewpoint of marijuana usage not be come more morally acceptable, thus more popular, then you would not see it being stricken from the state books. Gotta love states’ rights.

    2. Wishful thinking? Kind of like the notion that your religious scriptures (legislation/constitution) are actually “laws” which apply to anyone alive today?

      1. Well the reality is that “laws” are actually in force where as “wishful thinking” such as the above and anything these jokers support barely exist and are constantly being knocked down.

        1. Worshiping violence is all you know.

        2. Well, the reality is that a psychopath who has kidnapped people and is holding them in a secluded location is the de facto “law” for those people.

          Would you argue that that makes it right?

          1. Then don’t break the law. And if you don’t like the law or enjoy paying taxes, then move.

          2. Why should the victims have to move? Stop terrorizing people.

          3. What gives a certain group of people the right to tell me what to do and what not to do, and to steal my money?

          4. Something called “The law”. You know. The very thing you consent to abide by just by living here. And as I have said to RAD above you there, If you don’t like it, get off your duff and do something about it.

          5. I never consented to anything.

          6. I suppose that the crime of being born makes me a perpetual slave in your mind? I never signed any “social contract.” I am a free man, who owns himself, and who is free to do anything, so long as it does not harm anyone else.

          7. The “law” which you have no facts to prove applies to anyone beyond “some guys said so” or a piece of paper(written by “some guys”) says so. So in essence you are saying you have the extra “rights” to violently control others and take their money on the basis of “some guys said so”. So what is the difference between what you do and what this gang does(factually speaking):


    3. I love how the nutty ones come out. And in the end, they’ll do nothing….

      1. Mostly it’s because they’re so baked they forgot what the hub-bub was all about.

        1. A lot of of anarchists are not drug addicts.

          1. Not very many of them tend to be very bright either.

          2. The voluntaryists in New Hampshire have a plethora of intelligent, well-educated people among them.

          3. Then why can’t they get anyone elected to their houses? NH is overwhelmingly a GOP state so much that your movement isn’t on the political radar, other than as filler for the 24hr news cycle.

            And how much sway does your four electoral votes have?

          4. Then why are they landing in jail all the time? Ran out of couches to surf on?

          5. Because the violent gang members have targeted them.

          6. ….wow, nice one.

  4. Just a tax cheat. Pay my legal fees, pay to listen to me ramble.

    Also he’s carrying rather unsafely, if he draws he’ll sweep the barrel across his own body not to mention ensuring he doesn’t jam his finger into the trigger well.

    1. If you defend yourself from a robber, then you’re a cheat, according to your own “logic.”

      1. Pay your taxes and when you get caught, don’t beg others to bail you out.

        1. The corporate welfare state is a huge bubble. And when it crashes it will crash HARD. The great depression was just the teaser. When the international oil embargoes fall apart and the dollar enters its hyper-inflation stage it’s game over.

          1. Hey guy…..you finally got one right. Sort of. But that has nothing to do with the police.

            I know you struggle to string things together.

          2. Cops keep everything going. Without the threat of force, who would pay “taxes” to perpetuate this shit sandwich?

          3. Ya, then then there’s that, too.

          4. If tens of thousands of people stopped dying on the highways, or killing one another, breaking into homes, stealing things from your shed, or otherwise creating issues, then there would be no need for the police.

            ….in an odd turn, if “the people” could behave, then there would be no police.

            Sorta makes you think huh…

            Now run along to school junior.

          5. Oh it will affect you as the “police”. How many of your colleagues will show up to work when the money just isn’t there to pay you or when your “pension” you worked for is worth 5c on the dollar?

          6. He’s watched to many conspiracy theory clips.

        2. No, one should just shoot the robbers to death.

          1. After reading your juvenile understanding of things….I definitely think you can’t be more than 17.

          2. Then you’re an idiot.

          3. Ahh, the default switch for the activist. If you want war, all you have to do is ask.

          4. You’re outnumbered,

  5. I have two ex-prosecutors and an active duty police officer on speed dial in case I get wrapped up in the system. Guess who’s charges are more likely to get dropped? The guy who says F anyone in the system, or me who allies myself with people with influence that are fed up with petty charges and bogus revenue generation tactics just like us?
    I for one want to allie with as many people on the other side of the fence, so to speak, as possible. I personally know many LEOs that are just as fed up with the justice system as we are. Everyone is so stuck in the us vs. them mindset that they don’t bother to realize there are allies on the other side as well.
    By supporting this guys

    1. Message you are just looking like those idiot soverign citizen and freemen on the land.
      Totally wipes out all credibility when I see these types of people featured on this site.

      1. K so go worship a flag or something to get credibility.

    2. K so go worship your authoritarian heroes who have influence with the cult of authority. Don’t read copblock it might wake your mind up to ideas big brother would rather you not know about.

  6. Can any of you clowns explain why the 51% have the right to coerce the 49%?

    1. The reality is that in practice democracy isn’t even majority rule. It’s usually some minority special interest violently forcing its agenda onto the populace through government intervention.

      1. Wow, you make America out to be a pretty miserable place…

    2. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

      1. The former is merely a special case of the latter. The former is mob rule in that the constitution that supposedly limits what government can do, can itself be changed if a large enough mob wants it changed.

        1. That should make you and those that share your views happy, in fact, that should be your motivation. All you need to do to establish the society you so desperately want is to convince a large enough majority. Oh, that and vote, but therein lies the rub, since most of those that share your views, share your views on voting as well, and without voting, where does that leave you? That’s right in a position that diametrically opposes the stated governing principles you so virulently stand behind, that pesky NAP. Without engaging the system to change it via the vote, you are left only with the option of violent revolution to truly accomplish what you wish to accomplish.

          Inevitably, you end where you seem to have begun, one group imposing their, to use your, and your compatriot’s, words and ideas, “religious dogmas” upon others.

          1. No voluntaryism doesn’t require “imposing” any dogmas on anyone.
            It is the opposite actually.

            And “engaging the system” and “violent revolution” are not the “only” options, thats a false dichotomy. All that has to happen to make the government obsolete is a critical mass of people who are prepared to say no. And it could be reached at way fewer than a majority although it would require more libertarians than society has now (due to the pervasive and ubiquitous indoctrination by the state religion propaganda centers – schools and media). My guess is that critical mass could be as low as ten percent, maybe even less.

          2. Voting isn’t necessarily needed if enough people in a given area are voluntaryists. There are several transitional scenarios.

  7. I wonder what would happen if activist(s) decided to stop making cute
    pictures with bold captions and highly edited videos, but actually
    rallied support, ran for office and won?

    …….Meh, never happen.

    1. But, but, but, but the system is rigged! Yeah, if they can’t do it from home, why bother even trying

      1. Like Ian Freeman running for Governor. Best of luck.

    2. And then they become part of the criminal gang. Yeah, no.

  8. The statists have yet to explain what makes me the property of other people.

    Note: “Because I said so,” “Because you were born,” and “Because of the social contract.” are all fallacious, and therefore invalid answers.

    1. Because you live in a society, a community, with social rules. The social contract you perhaps ignored in 7th grade.

      Your actions or in-actions have an impact on others. Just as I cannot blast Led Zeppelin at 3 am, as it disturbs you, you cannot drive with an excessive BAC thus risking harm to others.

      Rules and laws to “effect their safety and happiness.”

      Its not really all that complicated. You sound like a high schooler that’s discovering that you actually have to work.

      1. I never signed any such social contract. Please provide a copy of this alleged contract.

        Blasting music onto your property is clearly a form of trespass (acoustic trespass), as matter that you own is being vibrated against your will.

        On the other hand, in a society where the roads are all privately-owned, the owners can set whatever rules they want, and deal with the consequences (being too strict can result in loss of business to competing parallel roads). Right now, since we all own the roads, no one has a right to set rules for road use. Anyone should be able to use the roads in any manner that does not harm others. Since drunk driving in and of itself does not harm anyone, any more than adjusting a car radio does, one has the absolute right to drive drunk on public roads.

        You continually falsely accuse me of being an age that I’m not.

        1. You do realize that not all contracts are written, don’t you?

          By your reasoning, if you even so much as speak in the vicinity of my property you are committing “acoustic trespass” by causing matter that I own to vibrate.

          Competing parallel roads? And where, prey tell, are all those parallel roads going to go?

          So, threats are bad, even if they are only an implied threat, which is your complaint against police existing, but you think it’s perfectly OK to threaten others with death, which is what one does when they drive drunk? That’s some high quality rationalization of “only my rights, my needs, my desires matter”

          1. What is this social contract? What are its terms? Who are the parties?

          2. “You do realize that not all contracts are written, don’t you?”

            There are verbal contracts, but the so-called “social contract” is completely imaginary, a fiction invented to fool idiots into thinking that the state is legitimate.

            “By your reasoning, if you even so much as speak in the vicinity of my
            property you are committing “acoustic trespass” by causing matter that I
            own to vibrate.”

            Damages must be proven, though, in order for you to legitimately demand restitution. Speaking quietly as I walk on a sidewalk adjacent to your house is extremely unlikely to cause damages. An inconsiderate piece of shit who wants to force you to listen to his music at 3 AM is causing physiological harm, since REM sleep is a necessity.

            “Competing parallel roads? And where, prey tell, are all those parallel roads going to go?”

            It’s “pray,” not “prey.”

            There is already redundancy in the road network.

            “So, threats are bad, even if they are only an implied threat, which is
            your complaint against police existing, but you think it’s perfectly OK
            to threaten others with death, which is what one does when they drive
            drunk? That’s some high quality rationalization of “only my rights, my
            needs, my desires matter””

            Do people threaten others when they adjust their car radios?

          3. “There are verbal contracts, but the so-called “social contract” is completely imaginary, a fiction invented to fool idiots into thinking that the state is legitimate.”

            No. The social contract, a concept that can be traced back to a similar starting point as philosophy in general, was a means of explaining the natural order of man, which is that man is a social creature deferring some of his individual freedom for the security and safety of a society.

            “Damages must be proven, though, in order for you to legitimately demand restitution. Speaking quietly as I walk on a sidewalk adjacent to your house is extremely unlikely to cause damages. An inconsiderate piece of shit who wants to force you to listen to his music at 3 AM is causing physiological harm, since REM sleep is a necessity.”

            Hey, you’re the one that brought up the idea of acoustic trespass, not me, you didn’t speak of restitution when you brought it up. What about the inconsiderate piece of shit who wants to mow his lawn at 11 AM when I work nights? That’s the crux of why I have worked to get a noise ordinance struck down in my area, noise ordinances rarely consider anyone that works outside of the traditional “business hours” window. It’s also why I’m a proponent of being a neighbor in the traditional sense, where I do what I can to coordinate noisy activities out of consideration of my neighbors, this is especially necessary for a musician.

            “There is already redundancy in the road network.”

            Yes, there is some redundancy, but that is drastically different from having parallel competing roads, a concept you suggested we could have, which is why I asked where all those parallel roads would go. Further, how would one avoid using a road they don’t wish to use if the owner was too strict or charged too much or whatever, if the road they choose not to use lays between them and the parallel road they want?

            “Do people threaten others when they adjust their car radios?”

            That would depend on how they adjusted their car radio. If a person takes their eyes and focus away from driving, then, yes, they are posing a threat to others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *