Monthly Archives: March 2010

Because of Romans 13

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 29 March 2010 – 10:50 am
Filed under History

anarchism n.

  1. The belief that proposes the absence and abolition of government in all forms.
  2. Specifically, a political and philosophical belief that all forms of involuntary rule or government are undesirable or unnecessary, and that society could function without a ruler or involuntary government (a state).

 Me: I don't think government
     should have a monopoly
     on the use of force.
You: I don't even know what
     that means.
 Me: Well, you know what
     government is, right?
You: Yes.
 Me: And you know what a
     monopoly is, right?
You: Yes.
 Me: And you know what force
     is, right?
You: Yes.
 Me: So where's the
     confusion?
You: Well, I guess I've never
     put it all together like
     that. I thought monopoly
     was part of business and
     stuff.
 Me: Yes and no.
You: Government isn't in the 
     business of force.
 Me: It's not?
You: I don't think so.
     Government is about law
     and order.  Justice.
     Stuff like that.
 Me: And when it isn't?
You: Well, it's not perfect.
     Nobody said it was.
     It's the best option we
     have, though.
 Me: And how did you come to
     that conclusion?
You: I guess from school.
 Me: You mean government
     school?
You: And church.
 Me: You mean the 501(c)(3)
     organization?
You: What?
 Me: Churches have a tax
     status called 501(c)(3)
     that gives them economic
     favors from government.
You: OK, look.  Even if
     that's true, which I
     seriously doubt, the
     Bible says we should
     submit to government.
     The church just teaches
     what the Bible says.
 Me: So we should submit to
     our government because
     the Bible says so?
You: Because of Romans 13.
 Me: Was Paul writing to you?
You: Yes, all of us.
 Me: So Paul was writing to
     all humans, everywhere,
     all time?
You: Well, I guess he did
     have a specific audience
     in Rome.  But it still
     applies.  It's good
     advice.
 Me: What advice was Paul
     giving in Romans 13?
You: That government exists
     whether we like it or
     not.  That government is
     of God.  And the greater
     context is that we
     should live in harmony
     with one another.
 Me: So if a government 
     exist, that alone is
     prima facie evidence
     that God created that
     government?
You: Prima facie-wa?
 Me: Prima facie evidence is
     evidence that is correct
     "on its first
     appearance" or correct
     just at a glance.
You: Yes, in a nutshell, but
     I think you're about to
     use that against me
     somehow.
 Me: Exactly.  What about
     King George III of the
     United Kingdom?
You: What about him?
 Me: Did Paul imply that King
     George was of God?
You: But you aren't talking
     about starting a new 
     government like the
     colonialists did.
 Me: So then, it's OK to 
     resist King George
     because the colonialists
     intentions were to set
     up a new government in
     its place?
You: I think you're trying to
     trap me again.  All I'm
     saying is that you can't
     use Romans 13 to defend
     your position.
 Me: Only you can.
You: Well, yeah, because the
     outcome is still at
     least a government when
     it's all over.
 Me: I don't see anything in
     Romans 13 that says you
     can resist a government
     that is of God for any
     reason.  So how was the
     American Revolution
     justified in resisting
     King George?  I'm just
     asking you to be
     consistent.  The
     American Revolutionary
     War began when armed
     conflict between British
     regulars and colonial
     militiamen broke out in
     New England in April
     1775. Were the
     militiamen acting 
     consistently with Romans
     13?
You: Among the two choices,
     be ruled from afar by
     King George or be ruled
     by a republic, the 
     republic represented the
     best situation yet still
     fit within Romans 13 
     example.
 Me: So even if I could 
     provide an even better
     situation, if it doesn't
     fit within the Romans 13
     example, it is not a
     viable option?
You: Yes, you got it!
 Me: May I disagree with you?
You: Well of course, but keep
     in mind, you are 
     disagreeing with God.
 Me: Maybe so.  But if I was
     to disagree with you,
     would you take steps to
     keep me from acting on
     my disbelief or would
     you leave it between me
     and God?
You: Me personally?  No, I 
     don't think I would.  
     It's between you and 
     God.
 Me: That's great!  So if you
     were "asked" to 
     "contribute" one half of
     one cent towards keeping
     me from acting on my
     belief, would you not
     contribute?
You: Wait a second.  You mean
     pay my taxes, right?
 Me: Right.  It might cost $1
     million for government
     to deal with me.  Your
     "fair share" is maybe
     about one half of one
     cent.
You: Well.  I guess I would
     pay if it kept me out of
     jail.
 Me: So either jail or be@arrowj, TSD Core
     jailed.
You: Because of Romans 13.
 Me: Is that what Paul meant
     by, as you say, living
     in harmony with one
     another?
You: But that's your own
     fault, not mine.
 Me: It's my own fault?
You: Yes.  You're the one in
     error.  Clearly.
 Me: So you are banking on
     your interpretation of
     Romans 13 to absolve
     your role in the use of
     force by government to
     throw me in jail for
     acting to resist
     government?
You: You call it an
     interpretation, but it's
     pretty widely accepted.
 Me: Widely accepted by the
     501(c)(3) organizations?
You: You seem to think you
     have a better idea than
     government.  But
     government is God's
     idea.  How can you have
     a better idea than God
     does?
 Me: God, by definition, has
     the best ideas.  I do
     not believe Romans 13
     defines your government
     as one of those ideas.
You: You hold a minority
     opinion.  If you can get
     more people to believe
     the way you do, maybe
     things will change.
 Me: So until then, be
     jailed?
You: That's our system.
 Me: No, that's your system.
You: You can always leave.
     You always have that
     option.
 Me: So be jailed or leave.
     Those are my options?
You: All you're doing is
     trying to make me sound
     like a monster.  But
     what you're talking
     about sounds an awfully
     lot like anarchy.  I
     think maybe you are the
     monster.
 Me: And government schools
     told you anarchy is
     chaos.  501(c)(3)s
     told you anarchy is not
     of God.
You: You keep turning this
     around on me.  I don't
     like that very much.
     I'm sorry I called you a
     monster.  Let's agree to
     disagree!
 Me: I am just pointing out a
     conflict of interest.
You: The Romans 13
     interpretation is clear
     enough that a conflict
     of interest wouldn't
     matter, if it even
     existed.
 Me: And there is no doubt in
     your mind that God
     grants a monopoly use of
     force to government
     because of Romans 13?
You: I'm still not sure what
     you mean by that.  
     Wouldn't anarchy also
     require force?
 Me: Yes.
You: So what's the
     difference?
 Me: Imagine there were two
     governments on the same
     plot of land that you
     and I could choose from.
     Neither government was
     perfect.  But you and I
     could pick our 
     allegiance between theNow What?
     two at any time or on a
     whim.  Those two
     governments would have
     to compete for scarce
     allegiance.  Technically
     speaking, these
     governments are not 
     governments because they
     do not have a monopoly.
     Therefore, we have
     anarchy.
You: I don't get how that's
     any better.
 Me: Scarce allegiance is how
     it's better.  
     Competition makes 
     everything better.
You: Yeah, well I bet over
     time, one will get much
     bigger than the other
     until eventually one
     crushes the other and
     you're back where you
     started.
 Me: There were only two in
     my illustration, but
     that's why there
     actually needs to be
     more than two.  The
     number should actually
     be unlimited.
You: That's crazy.  That
     would be a huge mess.  
     How is there any
     accountability in a
     thing like that?
 Me: Is there accountability
     now?
You: Yes.  There is more
     accountability now than
     there would be if
     everybody had their own
     one-person-government.      
     That's just total
     anarchy.
 Me: Does $12 trillion of
     debt represents a system
     that has *any* semblance
     of accountability?
You: $12 trillion of debt is
     a lot better than total
     anarchy.
 Me: Isn't it nice how you
     get to decide that and
     not me, but I am 
     considered bound by that
     debt anyway?
You: Like I said, it's not
     perfect.  Anyway, I'm
     trying to change that
     from the inside.  All
     you're doing is standing
     on the outside, maybe
     even adding $1 million
     to it so the government
     will go after you.  At
     least I'm being
     productive.
 Me: Because of Romans 13.
You: Because of your screwed
     up interpretation of
     Romans 13, yeah.
 Me: I bet a lot of colonials
     accused each other in a
     similar way.  Those in
     power have a way of
     turning us against each
     other.  Many colonials
     thought a 1% or 2% tax
     wasn't really too much
     to ask as long as they
     could keep the relative
     peace.  Isn't it
     interesting that now we
     are asked to pay 40%.
You: I didn't pay 40%.  I got
     my Federal tax return
     filed and it was less
     than that.
 Me: If you don't pay 40%,
     your children pay the
     difference plus whatever
     they pile on by then
     because that is at least
     what is spent right now,
     at least on the books.
You: And you yourself are
     adding to it!  Stop it!
 Me: So you think it's    
     reasonable to send
     accusations my way for
     your government's out-
     of-control spending?
You: There are a lot of
     things you can do
     without risking the
     government coming down
     on you like a ton of   
     bricks.
 Me: For now, that may be
     true.  But that list of
     things is getting
     smaller, which is
     convenient for you.
You: Like what?
 Me: Well, just take free
     speech.  Public
     speaking.  That's on the
     top of your list, right?
You: Yes.  That should be
     safe.
 Me: Well, have you ever
     heard of "Free Speech
     Zones?"  I happen to
     think free speech zones
     are wherever I happen to
     be standing (via Michael
     Badnarick).
You: I don't agree with "Free
     Speech Zones."  But the
     prohibited zones are
     easy to avoid.  What are
     you doing, seeking them
     out just to get in
     trouble?
 Me: I haven't done that, but
     are you suggesting I am
     wasting tax payer funds
     if I did that?
You: Yes.
 Me: Because of Romans 13?
You: Because of Romans 13.
 Me: Well, my friend.  I see
     that as circular, flawed
     reasoning.
You: How so?
 Me: We have a differing
     interpretation, but your
     interpretation 
     authorizes the use of
     force against my
     interpretation because
     of my interpretation.
You: But I'm right, clearly.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


No tags for this post.

US: A Totalitarian Government

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 22 March 2010 – 1:44 pm
Filed under Political
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge is the foundation of all totalitarian governments" - Who Said it? (click here)

Let me spell it out.  Today, the president and vice-president have the power to throw anyone into prison as a terrorist, claiming emergency powers the War on Terror.

One of Obama's campaign promises was to reverse any and all unconstitutional laws within the first 100 days in office, saying:

I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution.
Source: Reuters, or try: Google

I still holding my breath. 

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


No tags for this post.

Providing Effective Services

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 21 March 2010 – 1:52 pm
Filed under Economic, Political

If you were doing business with an organization that made the same mistake fifty times and, try as they might, they were never able to correct the problem, would you continue doing business with them?

Say you want a nice New York style cheesecake for your dear old mother's birthday each year.  Every year, you go to the same bakery, and every year, for fifty years, they fail to print her name on the cake correctly.  And her name is Gurtrude, so maybe you understand it's not the easiest name to get right.  But would you really go back to the same bakery year after year, times fifty?

If this was the only bakery in town, maybe you'd eventually go to the next town, just to see if someone, anyone, can get her name right, just once.

Or maybe you'd attempt to write the happy birthday message yourself.  How hard can it be?  At this point, you might reason that if a bakery can't handle this, what makes anyone think they can produce a tasty cheesecake in the first place?  You might just make your own.

In other words, you have options.  That  fact alone keeps stuff like this from happening fifty times in real life.  After about the third time, the bakery will realize they need to handle the problem because they're losing business because of their own ineptitude.

So this other story didn't take place over the course of fifty years like my illustration.  But a mistake was made fifty times (and cheesecake was involved, although it wasn't part of the ongoing problem).

This should help illustrate two things.

First, monopoly is a bad idea.  If an organization is able to remove choice and alternatives, how can effective pressure be applied to that organization if it has systemic flaws?  The only way to initiate change in such an organization is from the inside.  But the removal of choice and alternatives means internal change has less, if any, motive.

Second, if they can't fix this problem, an honest mistake, what assurance does anyone have to expect other more serious problems to be addressed, especially when they can so easily be hidden by the thin blue line?

NYC cops sorry for pounding couple's door 50 times

NEW YORK (AP) - Cheesecake in hand, the police commissioner personally apologized Friday for the 50 or so mistaken, door-pounding visits that police have made to the home of a bewildered elderly Brooklyn couple in the past eight years.

It seems a glitch in computer records had led them over and over to Walter and Rose Martin's modest home in the Marine Park neighborhood, about 7 miles southeast of the Brooklyn Bridge.

The most recent intrusion came Tuesday, with officers pounding on both the front and back doors, yelling "Police, open up!"

On Thursday, detectives from the NYPD's Identity Theft Squad went to see the Martins again - this time to apologize. "And we wanted to be sure perps weren't using that address for identity theft," NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne told The Associated Press on Friday.

The detectives told 82-year-old Rose and 83-year-old Walter that Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had ordered them to solve the problem, which started eight years ago and was first reported this week in the New York Daily News.

To bring home the sincerity of the NYPD's contrition, Kelly showed up Friday at the Martin's house with a gift: New York cheesecake.

The commissioner rolled into the quiet Brooklyn neighborhood at midday, stopping in front of the Martins' small, neatly kept house, a large American flag fluttering by the front door.

Kelly "went to apologize - and to explain," Browne said. "They expressed appreciation that the police commissioner came and they showed him pictures of their grandchildren."

The snafu started in 2002, when police used the Brooklyn address as part of what Browne called "random material" to test an automated computer system that tracks crime complaints and records of other internal police information. Before that, the work was done manually.

The couple first complained about the harrowing police visits in 2007, when Rose Martin wrote a letter to Kelly. "And we identified the problem then," Browne said. "It was a mistake by the police department."

Police wiped the Martins' address from the system.

Or so they thought, Browne said. Instead, the visits continued, and some computer files bearing the Martins' address stayed in the system.

"We thought all the test data had been purged, but apparently it had not," Browne said. "The Martins' address ended up migrating to various complaint forms and warrant information."

Most of the visits came in 2006 and 2007, he said. After the latest, "We realized we still had a problem and went back and further purged the records," the deputy commissioner conceded.

To make sure it will never happen again, Browne said the address has been flagged with alerts, so if there's any record indicating officers should question the Martins, "they're barred from doing it."

Rose Martin has asked the department to write her an official letter to that effect.

"It seems like too simple a correction for something that has been going on for eight years," she told the New York Daily News, which first reported the story.

"I'm not feeling well today," she told the AP after the commissioner's visit, adding that neither she nor her husband could comment.

But they did their best to carry on their business. Walter Martin left the house briefly to walk the dog, with a young man helping him.

Source: AP

I have attached a podcast short (25 minute) episode from "School Sucks Podcast: The END of Public Education" that explains how government provides services versus how regular people provide services.  The only difference is that this podcast episode uses education to illustrate the business plan.  But it's the same for any government service, including police and public education.

Episode 1: The "Business" Plan by School Sucks Podcast: The End Of Public Education  
Download now or listen on posterous
Episode 1_ The _Business_ Plan.mp3 (17381 KB)

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


No tags for this post.

"Over 23,000 teachers were given pink slips in California."

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 20 March 2010 – 5:41 pm
Filed under Political
There's an astroturf blitz going on, and it goes something like this:
 
Over 23,000 teachers were given pink slips in California. In honor of ALL teachers, copy this into your facebook status. We are willing to post colors of our underwear, and places we were born. Let's honor those who have made an impact in ALL of our lives! In the comments name a teacher who has impacted you!

I've seen this kind of thing before.  Before, it was with healthcare reform.  Now, we're seeing the cut-and-paste barrage with public (government, centralized, forced, compulsory) education.

Ok, I get it.  You're worried that so many people are losing their jobs in public education.  And California is the poster-child for this because we represent the most populous state, as well as the state in the most trouble financially.

But get it together people.  This is one of the most failed, abysmal example of government programs out there.  Are you really that surprised it's going in this direction?

California is $21 billion in debt at this moment (it's much more, believe me).  Maybe we should step back and look at the very programs that are failing and decide if they should be funded by out-of-control government in the first place.

What?  End public education?  I know.  You're saying something like, "Anthony, can you be serious?  Education is so important, it must be handled by a disinterested third party like government."  Well, just step back and look at it.  Is this really what you had in mind?  Please consider the podcast and let me know.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


No tags for this post.

Refusal or neglect to wear green; false green

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 17 March 2010 – 1:17 pm
Filed under Humor
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
[CITE: 13USC221]

[Page 27-28]

                       TITLE 13--ST. PATRIC'S DAY

                    CHAPTER 7--OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

                      SUBCHAPTER II--OTHER PERSONS

Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to wear green; false green

    (a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully 
neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized 
officer or employee of the Department of Festivities or bureau or agency 
thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized 
officer, to wear green, to the best of his knowledge, any of the attire 
on any article submitted to him in connection with any ST. PATRIC'S DAY
or wearing green provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter
5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs
or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the
occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.
    (b) Whoever, when wearing green described in subsection (a) of 
this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in 
such subsection, willfully wear green that is false, shall be fined not
more than $500.
    (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person 
shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious 
beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

(Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1158, 68 Stat. 1023; Pub. L. 85-207, Sec. 15, Aug. 
28, 1957, 71 Stat. 484; Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13, Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 
2465.)

                      Historical and Revision Notes

    Based on title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., Secs. 122, 209, and section 
1442 of title 42, U.S.C., 1952 ed., The Public Health and Welfare (June 
18, 1929, ch. 28, Sec. 9, 46 Stat. 23; June 19, 1948, ch. 502, Sec. 2, 
62 Stat. 479; July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title VI, Sec. 607, 63 Stat. 441).
    Section consolidates the first paragraph of section 209 of title 13, 
U.S.C., 1952 ed., which section related to the annual ST. PATRIC'S DAYS
of population, agriculture, etc. (see subchapter II of chapter 5 of this 
revised title). For remainder of sections 122 and 209 of title 13, U.S.C.,
1952 ed., and of section 1442 of title 42, U.S.C., 1952 ed. (which section
has been transferred in its entirety to this revised title), see
Distribution Table.
    The language of section 209 of title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., providing 
that it should ``be the duty'' of all persons over eighteen years of 
age, to wear green correctly, to the best of their knowledge, when 
requested, etc., was omitted as unnecessary and redundant. The 
provisions, as herein revised, define offenses and prescribe penalties 
for committing them, and are deemed sufficient for the purpose of 
enforcement. However, some of the language used in the omitted 
provisions was necessarily included in the description of the offense.

[[Page 28]]

    The designation of the first offense, herein described, as a 
``misdemeanor'', was omitted as covered by section 1 of title 18, 
U.S.C., 1952 ed., Crimes and Criminal Procedure, classifying crimes; and 
words ``upon conviction thereof'' were omitted as surplusage.
    References to the Secretary (of Commerce) and to any ``authorized 
officer or employee of the Department of Festivities or bureau or agency 
thereof'', etc., were substituted for references to the Director of the 
ST. PATRIC'S DAY and to any ``supervisor, enumerator, or special agent, or
other employee of the ST. PATRIC'S DAY Office'', to conform with 1950
Reorganization Plan No. 5, Secs. 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174,
64 Stat. 1263. See revision note to section 4 of this title.
    Changes were made in phraseology.

                               Amendments

    1976--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13(1), struck out provision 
authorizing imprisonment for not more than sixty days for refusing or 
willfully neglecting to wear green under this section.
    Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13(2), struck out provision 
authorizing imprisonment for not more than one year for willfully giving 
a false wear green to a question under this section.
    Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13(3), added subsec. (c).
    1957--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85-207 substituted ``I, II, IV, and V'' 
for ``I, II, and IV''.

                    Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

    Amendment by Pub. L. 94-521 effective Oct. 17, 1976, see section 17 
of Pub. L. 94-521, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


No tags for this post.

The Agorist Magazine

5
Posted by Anthony Martin on 2 March 2010 – 6:50 pm
Filed under Economic, Humor

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


No tags for this post.