FTL2009-02-09 with Ian and Mark

(27 minutes into the show)

Ian: ...as we continue here with a little something from our friend Dale over at AnarchyInYourHead.com. The "Slave Test" where he asks,

Ian Reading: Are you a slave? Recently I wrote about how governments manufacture and evoke powerful symbols to essentially brainwash us and keep us obedient. I used an analogy of similar tactics in the past to efficiently maintain the obedience of household slaves. I have a friend who claims my language is far too strong. He says I overuse words like “violence” and “slave” to artificially infuse my arguments with emotion when I’m talking about governments.

Mark: Well, hold on. See, here's one thing that people will often say as an argument to "the gun in the room." The government isn't actually pointing a gun at you, stop saying they're pointing a gun at you.

Ian: I got that one this weekend.

Mark: And I do understand they're not physically pointing a gun at you and I'm not saying that that's necessarily, it seems to hang people up, and if it hangs people up, you should look for something else. The fact is, they're threatening violence, absolutely threatening violence, and there's no denying that. You may not like, it's just the truth.

Ian: Did you hear my call to Talkback this weekend?

Mark: I didn't. Let me, quick, go on here. Now I don't know about every state, I haven't managed to get a straight answer to this particular question, but I believe, in this state, and every other state, that if you walk into a bank and say, "give me the money," you're gonna be charged with armed robbery. Do you understand?

Ian: There's a good chance, I don't know. If you don't actually have an arm, some sort of weapon.

Mark: If you go in with a toy gun, do you think you'll be charged?

Ian: Yeah.

Mark: I know somebody who was. Do you think if you go in and point your finger through your coat pocket?

Ian: Yeah, if you lead them to believe that you're armed.

Mark: They absolutely will, right if you lead them to believe. Now, the tone of your voice, I believe, can be construed as simply armed robbery, and, in the same way, just a government bureaucrat demanding a fine is, in fact, a threat of violence.

Ian: We'll come back with more and the Slave test...

(break 29 minutes into the show)

(Ian mentions the John Stossel Special as an aside then returns to the Slave Test 32 minutes into the show)

Ian: We continue with the "Slave Test" from our friend Dale over at AnarchyInYourHead.com, talking about how one of his friends was criticizing him for using words like "violence," and "slave," far too often in his discussions about the government. And he said that my friend critiqued me for artificially infusing my arguments with emotion when I’m talking about governments.

Ian Reading: I can’t really recall his exact argument but I think it amounted to “Nuh uh!”. But I thought of a way that he, and others who agree with his assertion could prove me wrong. They can take the slave test!

The slave test is very simple and fair. In fact, it places the burden of proof on me. After all, I acknowledge that I’m making some pretty strong claims. Are my uses of emotionally charged words like “violence” and “slave” actually accurate in the manner in which I use them while describing the nature of governments?

Mark: Right, I've found that people have a tendency when you talk like this, they'll have a tendency to latch on to one word, and rather than the sentence that you've given, for instance, I called them on Talkback not too long ago and when you were, I think you were in jail actually, and I said that, you know, essentially this was an ego thing between you and the judge and that these two men and their little dispute are holding us all hostage. Well, we have to pay for the dispute because you guys were disputing in the courtroom the we all have to pay for. Some guy called in and said, "we're not hostages."

Ok, alright, so you're not being held by a guy with a gun in the same room as you, skulking about, peaking out the window, however, you try not paying for it, Buster.

Ian: And see what happens.

Mark: Yeah, and see what happens.

Ian: And so that's kind of the basis of the Slave Test here. Dale says,

Ian Reading: let’s consider what it really means to be a slave. A slave is someone who must obey the orders of his or her master(s) under the threat of violent punishment. So we can actually address both of my oft-used words in one experiment. Also, I acknowledge that slavery requires such abuse on an institutionalized level. If a man threatens you with violence if you don’t hand over your wallet, I would immediately concede the term “slave” is inappropriate. You’re just a victim of an isolated violent crime. To achieve the status of slave, you’d need to continually be under the threat of violence to produce for and obey your masters.

Ian: After all, the common street thug that robs you at gunpoint or knifepoint is not likely going to come back at that same time next week and do it all over again. that's just not how they tend to work.

Ian Reading: An important part of the slave test is to avoid engaging in any aggressive behavior that might actually justify violent intervention. If you attack someone, people are likely to intervene on behalf of the victim and might even make some sort of demand like “Stop attacking that helpless elderly woman!” and they might even back the demand up with a threat of violence. I wouldn’t consider such an example as evidence that you’re a slave. So for the test to be accurate, you must avoid any such acts of aggression.

Bearing that in mind, the slave test is incredibly simple. Just act like a free person. Go about your own business doing as you please violating no one, and politely decline to obey any orders. For instance, if someone claims you must produce for them on a regular basis,

Ian: you know, like taking 15, 20, 25, 30% of your income,

Ian Reading: simply decline their demands.

Mark: This is where it has a tendency to fall apart.

Ian: What does?

Mark: The idea of slavery, because, the fact is, you don't have to work. A slave has to work.

Ian: You do if you want to pay your bills and keep food on your family's table.

Mark: Whereas,... You do if you want to keep the house that you live in and the way that you've become accustomed, however, the government has set out a,... I don't know what the term,... we'll use "slave," they've set up a "bad slave" program for people that are poor slaves, you know, to get fed and have places to live and things like that. You understand, you don't have to work. If you do work...

(Inconsistency Alert: Mark is trying to argue that the term "slave" is inappropriate by saying that unlike slaves, you don't have to work. But then he continues to use the word "slave," in this case "bad slave," to refer to someone who doesn't work. Good slave, bad slave. If you're going to say not working makes you something other than a slave, you can't call yourself a "bad slave.")


Ian: So you're saying the choice is to work or be a welfare queen?

Mark: Correct.

(Missed Point: You have a third option that neither Mark nor Ian addressed. You can choose to live off private charity. This is something neither a "good slave" nor a "bad slave" could do. On the other hand. Even if you do not earn money and have no possessions, there are laws against many of the peaceful activities in which you might choose to engage. While it could be said that you are free to choose NOT to engage in any of those activities and remain free, the fact that you would be punished by a so-called enforcement agent if you did engage in one of those activities means that you are institutionally and constantly mastered. In a sense, you are a slave.)

Ian: That's presuming you can get welfare which in order to do that you also have to subvert yourself to the system.

Mark: Sure. I'm just saying that, the fact is, you don't have to work, and that's the one little bit of this that isn't exactly right.

Ian: I don't think it's... I think you're wrong on that. When you choose to work for somebody, you're choosing to work for that individual, the state steps in and demands your money.

Mark: Oh, they do. Right. I'm not saying that the state doesn't demand a portion of your money if you do work. If you do work, they steal from you. So, as far as the terminology "slave," it's not exactly like what a slave was/is in most people's minds.

Ian: I see where you're coming from, but for me, it is. Anyway,...

(Missed Point: What does it mean to be a slave? It means you are property of another person, the "master." It means you are just another form of livestock. But we are humans. The thing that distinguishes us from all other animals is our intellect. We are very smart. We can figure out ways to get around the control others attempt to exercise over us. We can choose not to work and by producing nothing, living off the excess of others, and this makes us free to an extent, but not totally free. As mentioned in my previous "Missed Point," the masters are always on the look out to dominate their property. That's the bottom line. What makes something your property? You have a right to control it. Property can be land. If the land is your property, you have a right to determine how it is to be used. If a toaster is your property, you have a right to determine how it is to be used. If a goat is your property, you have a right to determine how that goat is to be used. And if someone has a right to determine how you can behave, you are their property. You are a slave.)

Ian Reading: If you get a regular bill in the mail for anything you didn’t explicitly request, send it back with a polite statement that you choose not to pay. If, while driving safely without causing any accidents or harm, you get a blue light signal requesting that you pull over, give a polite wave and continue about your business. If after not paying one of those regular bills, you receive a printed order to show up at a certain location at a certain time, politely decline. If a man orders you to get in the back of his locked car, assert your freedom and politely decline. If you are able to peacefully go about your personal activities and politely decline to obey all orders, and if you are not subjected to violence for disobeying, then you have passed the slave test! Congratulations! You’re a free person.

(Missed Point: If, while standing out in front of a government building puffing away on a joint a man wearing a gun tells asks you what you're smoking.. Politely tell him it's a joint of marijuana. If he tells you to hand it over, that you are under arrest and that you have to go live in a cage for some time, politely decline his generous offer and tell him that you refuse to cooperate with him in any way. If you are able to peacefully continue smoking your joint and if you are not subjected to violence for disobeying, then you have passed the slave test! Congratulations! You're a free person.)

Ian: So how many people are going to be able to pass this test? Not too many.

Mark: Ok, so, a serf is bound to the land, and therefore a portion of anything they produce is given to the king in order, for protection, essentially.

Ian: Ok.

Mark: A serf could choose, I suppose if they wanted to, they could wander off and live in the woods as a friar if they chose to do that. And they could choose not to work and not to produce any food. They would die, but they could choose to do that. And then in which case, the king's men would come around they say, "there's no food here," they likely wouldn't have been run through with a sword. It's possible they would have but, you know, likely they wouldn't have. So I think that, in some ways "serf" is also a good description.

Ian: You're saying you'd like "serf" better than "slave"?

Mark: It's,... in some ways it fits that definition.

Ian: How about "neo-slave," would that make you feel any better?

Mark: How about "neo-serf."

Ian: I think either one is fine.

Mark: Well, "slave" is more charged, "Serf" is less charged a term.

Ian: But people don't really know what serfs are, do they?

Mark: They know that it's not good.

Ian: Yeah, that's true. You know, I was having this conversation with, you mentioned Talkback which is the local talk show here,... one of the local talk shows here in Keene, and liberty activists in the area make a point of listening to it and, better yet, picking up their phones and calling in, making pro-liberty points, and this particular weekend's edition was quite mind-boggling. I highly recommend that you go to freekeene.com and download the archive and you'll be able to hear me attempt to hold these politicians feet to the fire on the issue of government violence, and the fact that there is a gun in the room, and the fact that there is violence backing up everything that the government demands, and it will amaze you to listen to the mental gymnastics that these women go through to try to avoid connecting their precious government to violence. They actually, at one point say, "oh, yeah that's aggressive but it's not violent. They actually claim that there's some difference between aggression and violence. It's amazing. Check it out over at freekeene.com

[scroll down to article "Liberty Activists and Statists Call WKBK’s Talkback 2009-02-07," then click on the "download the MP3" link] or [right column, scroll down to "audio" link, then scroll down to "Liberty Activists and Statists Call WKBK’s Talkback 2009-02-07," then click on the "download the MP3" link]

9:48 minutes into the show

Ian: Good Morning ladies, it's Ian from Freekeene.com.

Woman: Good Morning.

Ian: I don't know about that, but I'd like to say that Dan should be kind of ashamed of himself for complaining about not getting enough time at the end of his call, I felt like he was on there for at least 10 minutes.

Woman 1: That's what I was thinking, but...

Woman 2: See, that's what happens in an unregulated society.

Ian: Well, actually, this is actually regulated

Woman 2: Not a fair distribution of goods.

Ian: Well, you're on private property right now, the radio station's airwaves, and you control your show, so it's totally private property, anyway, I wanted kind of to expand on some of the things you were talking about there. Dan was talking about how he would like to see more private or market based versions of many of the services that government currently provides today, and you were pointing out, Cynthia, that from your perspective it's fine, everything's working fine, you guys are doing things as well as you can and the people you work with are honest. These are the things that I heard you say, and I believe that from your perspective, that's probably true, and I think that most of the people I've met in the city have been very sincere. However, I think that what Dan's concern is, and what a lot of other people's concern is, is that they may see things in the city government that they don't agree are fine necessarily. And, so therefore, they, perhaps, like me, with government schools, are not interested in paying for them. The problem is you guys will take their house from them and possibly harm them if they choose not to pay. Whereas in the market place, if I don't want to pay for a certain school, I don't have to. I could take my money and put it into one of the schools that has sort of the educational system that I believe is most effective. And the other schools in town wouldn't be able to come throw me out of my house because of that. So, do you see the difference?

Woman: But...

Ian: You know, government is essentially a violent monopoly, and the market place, people interact on a voluntary consensual basis. So, what I think we're really hoping to happen here, that we're working towards is just getting you guys to give up the violent monopoly and start operating like everybody else.

(Side Tracking Your Argument: You were going so well with this analogy. In a free market, you choose to put your money into this private school or the other private school and none of the schools have the authority to take your house away from you and possibly do you harm if you choose not to fund it, but with the government school, even if you put your money into some private school, the government will take your house and possibly do you harm if you don't also fund the government school. Do you see the difference? But instead of leaving that wonderful analogy as is and getting this woman's response, you sabotaged your argument by throwing in a "charged" term, "violent monopoly." Now, she takes issue with that word, and she doesn't address the point of the difference between private and public schools. You've been side-tracked.)

Woman: Well, I'd exchange the word "violent" for "enforced" or, um, uh,... "dominant" or "aggressive," but "violent" is not the right word to describe government.

Ian: Ok, aggressive is fine. I'll accept aggressive.

Woman: Never in the history of Keene, that I'm aware of, has anyone...

Woman: I mean, we don't shoot you if you don't pay your taxes.

Woman: get shot for not paying your taxes.

Ian: Oh, come on now,...

Woman: Or even locked up. I don't know if anyone has ever been locked up for not paying their taxes.

(Missed Opportunity: Is that because they all eventually paid their taxes or are you aware of anyone who refused to pay their taxes and was not subsequently locked up?)

Ian: Well, now, wait a minute. Let's follow this line of logic just for a moment. If, for instance, If I don't pay my property taxes because I'm protesting the government schools.

Woman: Yeah?

Ian: Eventually, you'll tax-sale the house.

Woman: Yeah?

Ian: Somebody'll buy it from you because apparently it's actually your house, not mine. They'll buy it from you. You'll sell it to them. I'm going to say, "well, wait a minute. This is my house. I paid for it, I own it outright, how dare you sell it out from underneath me." We'll go back and forth and then, of course, you'll send men with guns calling themselves the police, many of whom I've met and they're great guys, they're just doing a job that, unfortunately, could result in hurting innocent people. They'll come here and they'll tell me to get out. And if I don't get out, then that's when the weapons come out, ladies.

Woman: No, no. So, have you had a weapon drawn on you with your run-ins with police? Have they ever drawn a weapon?

Ian: Why would I have gotten to that point. I'm not interested in having bullet put in my body.

Woman: No, no, no, no. My point. You're talking about violence, and I'm saying, when police have shown up, were you ever in that situation?

Woman: Have you not paid your taxes?

Woman: And have the police shown up at your house?

Ian: Thank goodness, I have not had that situation happen.

Woman: I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you said you had the police come and escort you to court.

Ian: No, I haven't had that happen because I've jumped through the hoops that are necessary, because I understand that there's a constant threat against my freedom, that that could happen, for instance, the whole situation with the couch thing, if I had decided that I didn't respect the authority of the court and didn't bother to show up for that, for the court date that they set without my consent, then they would send men to my home to serve a failure to appear warrant on me. So, as soon as you stop consenting, at a certain point, men with guns do come for you. It's the truth.

Woman: Well, people, maybe they're women, but... they would not use it. They would not use a gun unless...

(Missed Opportunity: Unless what, exactly? You didn't let your finish. You didn't insist that she finish what she was going to say. The fact is, they WOULD use the gun if...)

Ian: Why would you believe that to be the case? If I did not want to cooperate with them, what do you think they'd do? If they had some sort of club, they might club me, or something like that, they may try to avoid using the gun, but eventually it's all backed up by violence.

Woman: But even in a situation with the Browns, neither of them were shot.

Ian: Thank goodness, they weren't shot, that's because...

Woman: But were they, were... They're the most egregious

Ian: Do you want to know why that was?

Woman: I mean, from my perspective, they were the most egregious example where they were barricaded and the police didn't storm in there even though they allowed them to be there for months and months and months.

Ian: Thank goodness they didn't. I mean, the police have learned their lesson to some extent by, you know, the Waco (experience?)

Woman: But doesn't that belie, No, no. That belies your contention that if you do not abide what is the rule of the, of where you live, violently you're going to be taken. And so what I would suggest is that they allowed that situation to go on for months and months. They had visitors. They were self-sufficient. They were off the grid apparently. So my point to you is, that to me is the most extreme example, even more than your couch, that violence wasn't used even though it had fest...

Ian: Hold on a minute, look at the situation. Do you know how it is they brought in Ed and Elaine Brown?

Woman: Right. They had someone who posed as a friend of, uh.. Someone who contacted them on the internet.

Ian: They used deception

Both Woman: Yeah, Right. But that's not violent.

(This would have side-tracked me. Deception isn't violent, this is true, but is it justified. Is it alright for the government to lie when someone has done nothing but refuse to obey an arbitrary rule?)

Ian: To pretend as though they were a friend. They went in there and had a little pizza party and during the pizza party several of the men actually turned on Ed and Elaine and arrested them.

Both Women: Right.

Ian: If Ed had pulled the 1911 from his belt, and decided to defend his freedom, what do you think would have happened then?

Woman: Then they would have drawn their guns. So it would have been, who blinks first.

Ian: So how can you...

Paula: But, but, but..

Ian: Hold on, Paula, how can you sit there and say that this was not a violent situation, it was not an aggressive act.

Paula: No, I'm saying they didn't go in preemptively and fire on these people where they could have from day one.

(WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! She just destroyed her entire argument. "They could have from day one." They could have gone in there preemptively and fired on these people. She just admitted that these men with the guns had the RIGHT to use violence preemptively against these people. She's been arguing that it just doesn't happen, not that it couldn't happen and not that it's wrong. In her world, the government had the right to preemptively fire on these people, to kill them because they refused to pay their taxes. She just admitted that you are correct, that the government threatens with violence.)

Cynthia: They tried to do it peacefully.

(But if they couldn't do it peacefully, they could and would do it violently. Is that what you're saying?)

Ian: I understand you're giving them credit for holding back on their level of violence.

Woman: Right, and you're saying,...

Ian: It doesn't make the act any less violent, don't you understand that?

Woman: But, but, no. Under your scenario, is that the Browns would have acted violently first, and they would have reacted.

(Missed Point: No. The Browns were passively resisting. If the police had never initiated any level of force, the Browns would have been content to remain on their private property and live peacefully off the grid, perhaps even with the voluntary support of friends if they really needed something that was not already on their property. If the police had never initiated any violence, the Browns would have remained completely passive. The only problem the government had with the Browns is that they refused to recognize their authority to tell the Browns what they may and may not do with their own property. The police initiated the confrontation. The police physically assaulted the Browns when they were off their guard. That initial assault was one level of violence. If the Browns had successfully fended off the initial assault and reacted by drawing weapons in defense, the police would have escalated their level of violence, but it was never the Browns initiating the violence.)

Woman: Ian, we do have another phone call.

Ian: Wait a minute, hold on! You don't think it's violence for somebody to rush you and grab you and put your hands behind your back?

Woman: Also what you're saying, whoa, whoa, whoa. You are saying, situationally, viole... that if they, if the Browns had acted first, the police would not have been justified in responding.

Ian: The Browns weren't acting first. They were on their own property when they were jumped by the police. The police were the aggressors. Well, they're aggressive, but they're not violent.

Ian: What does that mean?

Woman: Ian, we have to move on to someone else.

Ian: Have a nice morning. Bye.

Woman: Thank you. Bye-bye now.

(17:30 minutes into the show, they go to another caller, complaints about free-staters calling in to advocate "destroying the city of Keene." Another free-stater calling in after that to ask about a local law.)

(34 minute into the show. Sam from the obscure truth network calls in.)

Sam: Good Morning, ladies. It's Sam from theobscuredtruth.com.

Woman: Two minute call...

Sam: Paula, Paula, Paula. I'm stunned at your conversation with Ian.

Paula: Ok.

Sam: You really don't connect the dots between government action and the use of force or violence, I mean, you don't see any correlation there?

Paula: Well, I just think if people follow the rules, it doesn't happen.

Cynthia: I don't think it's unprovoked. I don't think the aggress of whatever force is used is precipitated. I don't think they preemptively use force and ask questions later.

Paula: Right.

(Missed Point: "If people follow the rules"? You know, these rules aren't the same everywhere, right? A rule might apply to people living on this side of the New Hampshire/Massachusetts border, but not to people living on the other side of that border. Someone on this side of the border has determined the rule that everyone must follow on this side of the border and someone else has determined that the people living on the other side of that border don't have to follow that rule. Now, if I'm living on this side of the border and that rule seems a bit arbitrary to me because people on the other side of that border don't have to follow it and they aren't hurting anyone by not following it, why can't I follow their rule instead of yours? What gives you the right to tell me what rules I can and can't follow so long as I don't harm anyone or infringe on anyone's rights or freedom in any way?)

Sam: So what if we pass a law that says we're gonna sell your house and kick you out on the street sell off all your possessions, and we do this nice process and it's all legal and we use the men with guns, but if you resist, then you're the one initiating the force. Isn't that what you're saying?

Woman: Well, I guess it depends on why you're doing that.

Sam: Because you believe that you haven't hurt anyone, you haven't caused any harm, and there's really, nobody has a valid cause of action against you.

Woman: I mean, why are they coming after me in the first place. What have I done?

Sam: Well, if you haven't hurt anybody, do you feel they are justified in coming after you?

Woman: If I haven't hurt anybody, but they're not going to come after me if I haven't hurt anybody...

Sam: Well, let's talk about the trash on the lawn, is that hurting anybody. Now, granted, it's unsightly. I don't want to live next to a neighbor who has garbage piled out in his front yard. I don't think I should have to, you know, like in Jesse's case, go downstairs and clean up the beer cans after the neighbors, that's another unintended consequence of government force. You talk about, well, the police had to come out and fix this up. No, the police have to come out because of this law that's been passed which has caused this unintended consequence, and that's the way the government works, every time...

Woman: But it's hurting me as a neighbor because it's devaluing my house. It's hitting me right in the pocket book.

Sam: How does what your neighbor does on his private property devalue your house?

Woman: Because if someone comes,... if my house is for sale and someone comes to buy it and the look and see what's next door, they're not going to buy it.

(This is actually a really good point. Concede the point, dammit. Concede the point.)

Sam: Ok, so then, what is your solution for that problem, to use government to force people who haven't hurt anyone to clean up their house?

(Don't ask THEM what THEIR solution is. We know what it's going to be, government action. You don't have to ask. Given that situation. If someone does something to harm me economically, I have a case for pressing charges. I'd sue.)

Woman: I'll use any means I can.

(So violence isn't off the table. You don't think it's wrong.)

Woman: If I come into your house and steal something, have I hurt you?

Sam: Well, yeah. You're on private property...

Woman: Well, no, no. Have I hurt you. That's your definition. Have I physically hurt you?

Sam: You are deciding...

Cynthia: If you're not home and I come in and take something out of your kitchen, take your spatula.

Sam: Ok, you take my spatula, Cynthia. I come home to cook dinner and I can't cook dinner because my spatula's been stolen from me, so yes, you've caused me harm.

Woman: But actually, it's helping the Dominos people.

Woman: No, no. So, I've caused you harm, so if you have trash in your yard and there's varmin or there's... you've also harmed me because you've taken economic value away from my house.

Woman: Right.

Woman: So you're steeling in the same way.

Woman: And there's our music.

Sam: Alright, you all win this week.

(Of course, they win the point. You're not arguing the right thing. It's not about physical harm, it's about control.)

(37 minutes into the show they go to another caller at 37:30. Caller who is complaining about the free-staters. another free-stater after that, someone complaining about free-staters, someone who doesn't agree with free-staters but is impressed, someone who thinks free-staters are part of the community for better or for worse.)