The armed friends and fellow travelers who offered to resist (physically) their arrest and the show of arms indicates that Brown would have preferred this type of contest. Maybe he, or his friends changed their minds about that – I would not say that it indicates any particular lack of courage to exercise that option either – just that, having taken the position, then abandoning it, shows the same lack of seriousness – if you will.

That is why he (Brown invited 'a host of additional charges' – because he took the stand. I maintain that if he were serious about his constitutional challenge of the law, he could have and would have prepared better (there are experienced people who could have helped him and probably offered to) and stood by his arguments, instead of failing to make his appearances after some adverse rulings – which he did.

Starting a case like this, you must know (and if he had read anything of this line of case he would know) thatteh most likely chance for any kind of victory is in teh appeals/review process, not in the court of the first instance. His actions were damaging to his own cause and again – showed a lack of conviction. Andn if you want to geta ajury or any person to judge you to be innocent of a crime, you must admit that it is necessary for them to know your honesty and integrity. Not a good showing at all…

On the other hand, if you are bent on a destructive course for want of character or through fear, ignorance – or you are just so beaten down from fighting for your cause hat you haven't got the wherewithal for a serious fight – your friends and counsel should assist ou in finding the path of least resistance or least pain to resolve the issue. In this case, it probably would have been to bend over and make a deal with the US Attorney.

Still, the other option – to shoot it out with the fed cops, should the merit of that appeal to you – is always available.

All I'm saying is that he made some poor choices and I suppose his friends – who hyped him up for the fight which they were ill-prepared to undertake, ultimately let him down and handed a huge PR victory to teh statists.

Nice fucking going!

WTF is wrong with you?

If you want to thwart the theft you must start at that point by doing work where that doesn't happen, ie., become self employed.

But your job doesn't end there for the master thief is very cunning, but he is also very lazy.

You too can learn how to stay several steps in front of the master thief and his legion of vicious drones.

Fortunately for you, the master thief and its drones are all very stupid and lazy AND they do not have the resources to carefully screen all 300,000,000 of its intended slaves.

Its even probable, if you are of the cunning nature, to not only thwart the master thief but to also use its rules against it to recognize a net gain from its myriad of rules.

(when the rules get tougher the people get sneakier)

You will never be wealthy, or happy, and your family will endlessly suffer if you continue to fear the master thief and abide by its endlessly encumbering rules.

Refuse to be a slave, do what you have to do to survive and thrive outside the rules.

They have no RIGHT to have any say at all over anything to do with your life, period.

This is the only life you will ever have, live it like you mean it.

Or cower in fear, your choice.

It starts with you.

I think that's as likely to happen as your first two suggestions though.

Nothing in this life is ever strictly voluntary

I'm sorry for you, it must be one hell of a painful existence. Do you have a boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife? If so, wouldn't you constitute your relationship with one another as "strictly voluntary"? How about your friends and co-workers? Aren't those relationships "strictly voluntary"?

The freedom about which I'm principally writing, is the freedom to not associate with people who refuse to treat one another voluntarily and as equals. Insofar as man *must* organize, I still reject the premise that these organizations (and hence, the viability of the human species) depends in any critical fashion on violence and coercion, rather than voluntariness, compassion, and community.

"Doing either one or the other seems to indicate a lack of commitment, wouldn't you say? " I'd agree. If you want to take the "Constitution" approach, you'd be better served to simply submit to the trial and take your chances with the jury. Otherwise, you're (at the very least) inviting the host of additional charges such as "threatening a federal agent" etc., which ultimately played a large role in determining the length of the sentence.

Nothing in this life is ever strictly voluntary, we MUST organize to socialize a consciously humane and spiritual civilization that provides for the common good and the general welfare, otherwise life really is pointless and not worth living. The CREATOR of this world MUST be included in some way for there to be reciprocity (we are partners with Him in the process of creating a civilization worth living in).

CIVIL-ization is EVERYONE's business. I have a link to a site that may offer some insights into a possible future scenario:

Walden Three, rational, sustainable, luxurious, car-free, cities of the future
http://www.walden3.org/index.htm

With all due respect, I hope we all find the kind of civilization we seek that makes being here
worthwhile. May God assist in that endeavor. End Trans.

But there is danger in hero worship such as has always accompanied discussions of the Browns' tax trial. For one thing, forming an armed group and assembling in a fortified position, as they did, is an invitation to violent confrontation.

If that is the choice they made, okay, then that's their choice (and the choice of the people who joined them voluntarily), but then , what is the purpose of making the constitutional argument at trial? Doing either one or the other seems to indicate a lack of commitment, wouldn't you say?
I understand that some may take this to be hostile to teh cause of freedom as they see it, but it is not. The choice to arm yourself and join a group to take on the federal government at arms is about as serious as you can get. Therefore, it is not prudent to do so without fully appreciating the philosophy and principles behind it.

I think that the unifying theme of Ed Brown's group was not simply freedom or anarchy, but rather a different thing altogether,

The danger in embracing the whole for the sake of a single element (however attractive and just) of it is obvious. You could, if successful, empower or create something just as abhorrent as what you replace. I would find a religious tyranny not much better than the current system, just in case that' what he was thinking :)

That's because you have a group of individuals who are addicted to the great wealth and power that comes from imposing the ultimate monopoly on it's perceived "subjects", AND in order to protect that monopoly, they will use a combination of force and the threat of force in tandem with the power of mass communications in order to manipulate popular opinion 24/7….

Scandinavian "authorities" are no different… They also use force, or the threat of force in order to extract great wealth from it's citizens…

I guess the question would be "ARE THEIR SERVICES BETTER?" The answer is COMPARED TO WHAT? The US? The answer on many levels (but not all) would probably be yes…. But so what! Norway, Sweden and Denmark operate their own monopolies… There is no COMPETITION… Therefore, there is little incentive to improve services, not to mention any appreciable incentive to make them economically viable…. But these "states" acknowledge one general incentive…. If you're paying 60 percent of your income to the "state", then there damn well better be some type of return or else there will be a massive public revolt… So the public gets back a slight return which doesn't come near their initial investment… Unfortunately, most people think that's the only way to provide services in a large way… That is simply not true….

The US on the other hand, has a much smaller income "tax"… But that is rather deceiving, because if you include excise and other hidden taxes, then the average bite per "citizen" exceeds 60 percent…

Government and the mafia operate in the same way, except the mafia won't forcibly vaccinate my kids, nor will they tell me how to educate my children…

The truth of the matter is that services CAN be provided voluntarily, AND with free competition, prices WILL drop dramatically….

This is really a moral issue… It comes down to this question… You have to ask yourself if a product or service should be provided at the threat of violence……

To me, this kind of ultimate authority precludes a state of nature. Of course, in the end, this all boils down to one's philosophical/moral groundings.