On this month’s edition of “Questions For Corbett” James Corbett fields your questions on anarchism, free banking, bitcoin, veganism and much more. Would it matter if the people currently in power were overthrown and removed? Probably not. It’s likely a new group of power-hungry psychopaths will seize the ship.
Visit CorbettReport.com
“Would it matter if the people currently in power were overthrown and
removed? Probably not. It’s likely a new group of power-hungry
psychopaths will seize the ship.”
Yes. It would matter. If we went through and killed every Traitor in the American government today; you had best be believing that most if not all following members for government would be far less inclined to do the same traitorous shenanigans.
And if we had to kill many of the next group? You would have even fewer each time.
Maybe that is the fix?:)
I think the point is, just another gang would take over. In fact, it sounds like you want it to be your gang of murderers that would assume power. Exactly how is that going to help innocent Sovereign Individuals that want to be rid of state violence?
People are getting tired of the citizenship subjugation B.S. for which you advocate.
Just the weak!:)
The only people who ever have a hard time with my methods are people who see themselves as the future dead:)
Those who are not Traitors have nothing to fear. Those who are Traitors should leave the country while they still can:)
Just sayin:)
The only people who ever have a hard time with your methods are people who feel violence is immoral.
And by ‘traitors’ I suspect you mean those who don’t identify with your particular gang of criminals.
Your threats are childish. You people are going down. It’s just a manner of time. Freedom will prevail.
“Sovereign Citizen”
Really?
No real champion of the sovereignty of the individual citizen would ever advance the argument you just did in a million years.
Also, re: “Just sayin”, that is perhaps the most vapid expression ever to gain currency in the English language.
As one netizen correctly noted, adding “just saying” to a sentence is like adding 2 cents to a million dollars.
“”Sovereign Citizen”
Really?
No real champion of the sovereignty of the individual citizen would ever advance the argument you just did in a million years.
Also, re: “Just sayin”, that is perhaps the most vapid expression ever to gain currency in the English language.
As one netizen correctly noted, adding “just saying” to a sentence is like adding 2 cents to a million dollars.”
Really?:) So you speak for the Sovereign Citizen Movement? Or do you just speak for what you think it stands for?
You are going to flag me for saying “just sayin” and then use NETIZEN…You douchebag:) Nobody from any movement that ever prided itself on anything would ever use NETIZEN.
Saying Netizen on teh innerwebs is like clin ursef 1337. You’re not:)
Nice try. No cigar.
For starters, I was not speaking for the “Sovereign Citizen Movement”. I was speaking to it.
I wrote: “No real champion of the sovereignty of the individual citizen would ever advance the argument you just did in a million years.”
Get the difference? Read what’s in front of you more carefully in the future.
Re: “netizen”, I use the term in its most rudimentary sense, as a synonym for “some guy posted it online”. Nothing more, nothing less.
netizen
This word is a variant on citizen. A person who interacts with others on the internet. In effect, anyone who uses the internet becomes a netizen.
“anyone who uses the internet becomes a netizen”
Get it? No pretense at trendiness involved. As a true champion of the individual, I thumb my nose at fashion. I don’t care if a term is “in” or “out” at the moment. If it’s useful as a means of identification, I use it.
Re: the term “just sayin'”, what does it add to any statement, other than totally disown responsibility for defending whatever went before it?
You appear to be obsessed with presenting the appearance of Social Darwinian “toughness”. Well, to use your own characterization, that is just “weak”.
I would urge you to simmer down and think about the real meaning of such concepts as “sovereignty” and “freedom”.
Do that rather than attempt to defend the indefensible.
For the record, I happen to agree with much, albeit not all, of what the Sovereign Citizen Movement advocates.
Spare your self-righteous pretensions and your self-ascribed paternalistic garbage. Your issue is that I have stated what most people want to say and yet are afraid to.
I would advise you to simmer down before you hurt yourself crawling out of your small garret in downtown Taipei. While you are busy admiring, there are many of us doing more than advocating.
Do yourself a favor and stick to your tiny island or better yet, form your own movement there and then come back and tell the rest of us how we are doing it wrong.
My experience is, self-described ‘sovereign citizens’ are extreme right-wing constitutionalists/nationalists. Generally Republicans who are pissed-off because the State isn’t being run according to their authoritarian demands. (With this guy, notice the red/white/blue eagle.)
A common characteristic is that their authoritarian posturing quickly boils over into vitriol. (Note his reply.)
Yep. The ultranationalism is unmistakable.
Many, perhaps most, are not individualists whose highest priority is natural rights and individual sovereignty.
Rather they are race-based collectivists who merely want their raced-based collective to have its way. Their pretense at individualism is a thin veneer masking authoritarian intolerance. Any dissent from their orthodoxy results in swift escalation to name-calling.
They are of course correct in their rejection of federal government tyranny. But the big question is “What would they replace it with?” That’s the scary part.
Nailed it. Authoritarians flying different party flags don’t impress me, parties are simply government mechanics and another type of propoganda relying on group idenity and bandwagon marketing. It would all look and sound silly if not for the piles of dead and billions impoverished.
Sad to say, there may not be enough difference between Demopublican/Republicrat mainstream hacks and “Sovereign Citizen Movement” thugs to recommend the latter to genuine champions of liberty, even on an ad hoc basis.
BTW…calling yourself a Freemarket Anarchist while living in China and referring to yourself in the third person is the HEIGHT of Douchebaggery.
Corbett is very philosophically/ideologically pure, however, a utopian Anarchist or Agorist society of freely bartering citizens is never going to happen as long as the masses are hopelessly dumbed down and mind controlled. So, yes, friction and “overthrowing the scum” to get some breathing room to move forward is a necessary step.
What is often left out of the “end of money”, “localism”, and “bartering” solution, is it fits quite well with the final Technocratic carbon credit work camp (UN: “mixed use”) system of keeping the serfs on short electronic leashes. Fundamentally, we can only evolve to a decentralized non-aggression focused society if an ENLIGHTENED humanity can freely communicate and cooperate.
BTW, as a hypothetical situation, depending on what Corbett is defining as the capstone of the Pyramid (e.g. rumored “Group of 7” vs. ~5000 top elites consisting of CFR, Trilateral Commission, Royals, Pope, heads of state, etc.), I would wager that if the most rapacious 5000 elites vanished overnight their Globalist house of cards would fall.
Great talk james ty for the info , person to person or the barter system is the way to go ( i think ) , that said watch the doc … Engines of domination … just to see the tools used against us . If we are ever going to be able to kill this debt ridden system we need to know THY ENEMY . Remember folks … be positive , listen to all , follow none . tc all .
Notes on a self-less society…
The basis of a self-less economy is a self-less attitude, i.e. a mindset that thinks of others as much as or more than themselves. A self-less individual cares about the happiness and well-being of others with no concerns or interest about what it will get back in return.
So, for example, a farmer – who farms because that is their passion / talent – grows food for a community of 1000 people. Because she has a self-less attitude she provides the food that she grows for free. The people who receive the food also have self-less attitudes, and so they think about the well-being of the farmer, asking her if there is anything that she needs or needs help with. This is not in exchange for the food – as even if she could not provide food at a certain point they would still ask – but because they are self-less minded. Anything that the farmer needs or needs help with is provided to her from whoever has what is needed or who can provide the help.
This same model applies for each member of the community population. Each individuals primary work is the development and sharing of their own interests, passions, skills and talents. If there is a gap missing in the community, i.e. if someones passion is not waste collection and disposal, then the gap is filled voluntarily through each individuals community service. Community service is a voluntary and joyful role because it is the chance to help the community that supports and enables them to live a fulfilling, meaningful life exploring and developing their own interests.
Whilst a selfish mind assures us of at least one person looking out for us and helping us, i.e. ourselves, the self-less individual is supported and helped and cared for by many others, and, just as they help us, we help them.
Communities could form around certain ideas or functions. For example, those of a certain spiritual interest could live and practice together. Or those who are interested and skilled in a certain technology might live and work together. There would be no competition, because everyone has a self-less mind and they only wish to see success for one another, as well as the ensuing development of technologies that are going to help themselves and other human beings. If a certain technology is recognised as beneficial to humanity then all the resources needed to produce it will be provided by other communities. There would be no charge because there would be no money. The products would then be manufactured and delivered to all who want one.
If someone wanted something then it would be located on the internet, ordered and then sent to them (again, freely). But people would not want things for their own benefit or to accumulate wealth – in fact, because everyone can have anything they want, there is no concept of material wealth since there is no value in accumulating material resources. Plus, it wouldn’t be seen as desirable anyway, since happiness and fulfilment is understood to be attained elsewhere i.e. through a self-less attitude as well as the freedom to explore and develop their own passions. The motivation for acquiring material resources would be simple: ‘it would help me to help others if I had this’.
If a community was lacking a certain skill, for example, a doctor, then a doctor from another community would selflessly choose to move to that community. If there was a general lack of a certain skill at a particular time then the natural self-less mindset would inspire some people to take on those roles even if it was not their particular passion or interest.
It should also be considered that because each individuals primary education is in the development of their passions, skills and talents, most people would be what we currently consider to be geniuses. As such, humanity would make incredible developments and have access to amazing technologies that would massively enhance our lives, and that again would be shared freely for the benefit of all. There would be technologies available that cannot be discussed now because they might be beyond our comprehension, as such, as positive as the outline of a self-less economy is, it would likely be much, much better in reality.
Trust would prevail. If a technology community requested resources then they would be provided without any hint of suspicion (concepts like suspicion, deceit, theft etc. would disappear). It would be a given that the technology had been properly researched and developed and was of genuine benefit to humanity because the individuals developing the technology would be self-less and only concerned with benefitting others.
Humans would be naturally productive for two reasons, 1. Because they spend their lives doing what they love to do do, and 2. Because they want their community and others to be happy and well and so they want to contribute all that they can. Because everyone would recognise this shared mindset in others, everyone would be self managed. No-one would need motivating (another concept that would die out), and if people needed rest then they would take it without question. No-one would think to take advantage of such a way of living that benefits them and others so much.
To achieve a self-less economy we must first fully understand the possibilities and benefits of a self-less attitude so that we become motivated to practice the development of a selfless attitude, and then we must practice, practice, practice. This practice will become easier and more natural and quicker to adopt as it becomes the norm. At the earliest point possible our education systems should be adjusted so that our children are being developed into self-less individuals. We should also begin to focus our educational energies on identifying and developing their passions and talents.
Some people might not want to become self-less. An education system should be able to nurture a self-less mind in most children. Until then, those who wish to be selfish will be free to do so. We will attempt to convert them with our example, by letting them see how our communities work so well and how happy and fulfilling our lives are as self-less individuals. If they wish to continue to be selfish then, so long as they are not harmful to the community, they will be accommodated, and interaction with them will allow us to continue to practice and develop attributes of our self-less attitude, such as patience, compassion, forgiveness.
If they are damaging to the community and will not change then they will be asked to leave the community. Other communities will then welcome them and provide them with a new opportunity to become self-less. This cycle will continue until the individual converts to a self-less path. Each community will welcome the opportunity to accommodate them and demonstrate true selflessness. Each successful conversion will be shared with other communities so as to gain a better understanding of how a selfish mind can be accommodated and converted. Those who are converted will be encouraged to travel and share their conversion so as to inspire others to convert.
Only a selfish mind can perceive itself as being taken advantage of. A self-less mind wants to help, it wants to be of service, it wants what it has to give to be used – it wants to be taken advantage of. However, there comes a point – a point only we can discern – where our helping another only enables them, disempowers them, makes them dependent. A selfless mind will recognise that our help no longer helps but hinders, and at that point it will say no.