Freedom1: Liberty Revolution HQ

PLOWBOY: So you think our country's methods of instruction have a lot to do with the destruction of many family values?

HERBERT: Absolutely. By the time you have three or four generations of people who are taught not to trust their families and their families' knowledge, individuals can really become separated from their roots. The effect is to make people feel like lost wanderers, or to cause them to think of themselves only in the role of their jobs . . . which is a complete misrepresentation of what it means to be alive.

The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in "limited government" who is the truly impractical Utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, "Limit yourself"; it is he who is truly the impractical Utopian.

Grand strategy, according to Boyd, is a quest to isolate your enemy's (a nation-state or a global terrorist network) thinking processes from connections to the external/reference environment. This process of isolation is essentially the imposition of insanity on a group. To wit: any organism that operates without reference to external stimuli (the real world), falls into a destructive cycle of false internal dialogues. These corrupt internal dialogues eventually cause dissolution and defeat.

So, in short, if you want to accomplish anything in the future, you must be deeply connected to this media sphere, accomplished in its use, and immersed in its flows.  

We sit here in Strafford Cty. Jail, pondering the issue of utilizing attorneys in this onslaught of persecution from the federal government. No matter how we look at it, after researching attorneys' functions, the definitions of attorneys and who they represent or present, it all comes down to all attorneys operate in legal fiction as foreign agents, dealing in private corporate law (61 million of them) that is understood only by the courts and attorneys. Or do they—how can anyone understand 61 million laws?

I think that a few people have missed the point. Regardless of

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004),

keeping Sam imprisoned is clearly the state’s retaliation against him for not choosing to obey. By the State’s figuring, it does not need a reason, and I believe that Americans are mistaken if find this acceptable. I have no desire for my tax dollars to pay for the imprisonment of a man who has done nothing wrong, but I would happily come out of my own pocket for this case because I believe that it serves as a reminder that Americans desperately need. He has committed no crime against society or any individual. The fact that Sam could roll over and improve his condition is irrelevant because the United States does not have any legal authority to force Sam’s cooperation. We are not talking about a criminal, we are talking about a private citizen that happens to have challenged the assumed authority of the State: authority which “We the People” did not grant the State. To sympathize with the State in this case is to be its slave because the very idea of Sam’s imprisonment is principally unreasonable.

To view Sam’s condition as self-imposed displays a gross fundamental misunderstanding of our rights as Americans and as human beings.

A fundamental truism derived from the laws of thermodynamics, is that closed systems trend inexorably towards chaos.  The reason is that there isn't an external environment to which it can export the entropy created by its ongoing operations.  Our global system recently became a closed system.  There is very little of the world that it doesn't touch, influence, or manipulate.  So, we can expect to see an increase in entropy in all fields of human endeavor; expressed as chaotic forms of pollution, warfare, economic crisis, and societal discontent.  Worse, this trend line can't be mitigated with even with best of management (if we were only so lucky) at the national or global organizational level, since the only process which might accomplish this is organizational fragmentation/death.  So, when you hear economists talk about a return to equilibrium for our global economy (or words to the same effect in other professions) ....