Larken Rose interview – “Dialectic and the Myth of Government” – #115 (+ video)

Share


This episode is an interview with Larken Rose titled “Dialectic and the Myth of Government” and is being released on Tuesday, May 31, 2011. My interview with Larken was recorded on May 30, 2011.

Larken Rose is a self-described “enemy of the state” and “tax heretic.”
The author of several books–two of which were written during his one-year stay as a political prisoner in the U.S. prison system–Mr. Rose is an outspoken advocate of self-ownership and a voluntary society. For more information, see http://www.larkenrose.com/

Please note that the audio podcast version includes an interview with Larken Rose, while the video does NOT.

Watch the Free Your Mind presentation:

Or play / download the audio only (includes interview):

  32 comments for “Larken Rose interview – “Dialectic and the Myth of Government” – #115 (+ video)

  1. Kimberly
    June 3, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    Thank you Jan & Larken for helping me move further into my new paradigm free of the government myth. Excellent interview!

  2. Gene
    June 3, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    Yes, very good allegory for what is our situation. And yes very much the same as Gulliver’s Travels and many more. Now you get the point of but but, what do we do if someone robs rapes murders and steals? Well it was called teaching your children to do and know better if not like me and already had it. And for those who refuse to get it, well “frontier justice” when we “may have had” the free country we are supposed to be. Well make up your own mind but it makes sense to me.

    As for believing lies, well so many have been told. All the facts must be re-established and I do mean all facts even the ones that get people fired both historically, scientifically and socially.

    • Morgan Andresen
      July 14, 2011 at 9:32 pm

      It doesn’t even have to be as primitive as frontier justice, we can still organize with each other and hire police, we just have to do it voluntarily. We can do any of the good things governments do voluntarily and without the coercion of taxes of the indoctrination centres known as public schools.

      • Gene
        July 29, 2011 at 3:13 pm

        Have you read much about frontier justice? The hollywood version sucks majority of cases did not end in a lynch mob, till after they had hired someone to make their decisions for them and let the wrong doer get away with it. OH that getting together and hiring police=Government I.E. external force instead of internal, is the sewer we have collectively inherited but anyway. You make your own community with like minded individuals and keep it as you see fit.

        Hope you see the light, and get lite.

  3. jake
    June 16, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    hi there, and great work.. for some reason still your podcasts load 7 hrs worth all jumbled
    every download, only your site and peace revolutions does it?? just thot id mention it cause i miss listening to you guys…

    • Jan Irvin
      June 16, 2011 at 7:19 pm

      Hi. You’re the only one who’s reported any problem. It works fine on my machine. Make sure the problem isn’t with your system.

    • Greg
      June 20, 2011 at 8:13 am

      Hi Jake – does it for me too. I listen to 12+ podcasts and Gnostic Media’s files are the only ones that cause my player symptoms similar to what you describe. The program shows up as extremely long, fwd/rew are very slow, and stopping the podcast and restarting lands me in a different place in the program.

      I’ve witnessed this on 2 different brand hardware MP3 players and one software player.

      I told Jan about it some time back but at that time nobody else had reported it so I chalked it up to me being the only one who owned those players and/or used that player software. At least there are two of us now!

      Jan, do you and Peace Revolution use the same MP3 encoder? I suspect that many people may be having this problem (and just living with it or moving on, I hope not the latter).

  4. Lanie
    June 30, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Thank you for posting this interview and clip from the conference. I can’t believe how controlled I’ve been in my own thinking. I am putting myself out here by admitting this and I don’t mean to get a debate going, but I’ve been a strong Ron Paul supporter since 2008, but now I see the bigger picture. I like the idea of voluntarism and peaceful anarchy, and it can exist. Now I have to figure out a way to merge the two ideas and to still work with the existing governing framework in order to avoid apathy and breaking the law. Thanks so much for helping me come to this realization and giving me something important to think about.

  5. bernard lamarche
    July 9, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    simple allegory, powerful message.
    In the last few years I have studied the effects of Nazism.
    I often wondered how the German people , who have a history of great learning, would not accept the atrocities of the Hitler regime. I have read historical books that indicate that at the end of WW2, the occupying armies, forced German citizens into the concentration camps to see the inhumanity of the Nazis. This was done as an attempt to undo the Hitler propaganda lies.
    Today in North America we have governments propaganda lying to us in a similar fashion. 911 is a lie. The Patriot Act is a lie. Airport security is a lie. The list goes on, duplicating Nazism with even greater efficiency.
    The lies do take on a life of their own, just as Larken Rose describes it in the Volcano allegory.

    Well Done

    Bernard Lamarche
    Calgary Alberta

    • Jan Irvin
      July 9, 2011 at 5:38 pm

      Thanks, Bernard. Have you read Douglass Reed’s book, The Controversy of Zion? It’s a must read if you haven’t. I think it will fill in the gaps of information which you seek.

  6. greg
    July 10, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    This is an unfortunate position that’s taken hold over the disenfranchised American public. Organization is inevitable. If we overthrow our government, what will take its place? If other nations’ histories are any indicator of what typically happens when a government is overthrown, we could easily end up in a tyrannical dictatorship. Anarchy is not a stable state. Say somehow we achieve a nation with no central leadership, we would quickly evolve into warring tribes and states back up to nations.

    Isn’t government corrupt? Yes, it’s extremely corrupt and it’s the politicians running on “less government” platforms who are the most corrupt. We are all but owned by massive conglomerates like GE and BP already, take away government and that is one less channel they have to deal with to make us their direct slaves. We need referees on the field, and we need to stop electing referees who speak against the referee’s organization because they are wholly owned by one team (the super rich). I like that I have roads to drive on and clean water to drink, and that I live in a thriving(til now) nation, and I don’t mind paying 15% of my wages instead of being paid 50 cents an hour. We need to tax the rich like every other developed nation in the world does, and stop cutting all our spending for everyone else who is hurting badly right now. The middle class is quickly evaporating because of lack of regulation and the massive power of corporate interests.

    My point is, the answer is not to regress to an idealistic, impossible, homeostasis, and it would be best if we didn’t have to overthrow our government. We need to take back control of it and make it work for us instead of the super wealthy who internalize all profit, and externalize all expenses. And this is at the very least. You can tear down a government, but good luck tearing down the massive multinational corporations. The more of these right wing anti-government nuts we get in office, the more of us gets sold off to corporations.

    Personally, I think much more than that needs to be done because there are obviously great problems faced by the whole world today. But for the moment, we need to stop supporting people, who idealize a psycho loving author(Ayn Rand/William Hickman) and espouse selfishness as righteousness. I have been subbed to you on youtube for a while Jan, and some of your stuff is interesting, but you go on and on about trivium and logic and blah blah blah. Some libertarian type gives a long boring semi-theatrical presentation with little to no substance and your all about it. It doesn’t sound like you’ve thought this one through much. It saddens me.

    • Jan Irvin
      July 10, 2011 at 2:55 pm

      He’s not promoting anarchy. He’s promoting volunteerism and autonomy.

      • greg
        July 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm

        yeah. the nice words for anarchy.

        • Jan Irvin
          July 10, 2011 at 7:37 pm

          If it appeases your needs of putting it in the smallest box possible, while understanding it as minimally as possible. Check out Rose’s books and consider it in the larger picture of the trivium.

          • greg
            July 10, 2011 at 8:20 pm

            I’m not putting it in the smallest box possible. The podcast told me nothing but “government is bad” in various ways. I am not using the term anarchy in a negative sense. I’ll call it volunteerism or autonomy too, but it is still the same idea. It is not a stable state. We organize one way or another.

            I was bored by the lack of substance in the interview and presentation, and annoyed to hear more of what has become the modern right wing mantra on your show. Why would I waste more time on reading his book? In fact the reason I came to this page was because on the Joe Rogan’s podcast you posted you said government was unnecessary and Joe said that was crazy. You said look up myth of government so I did hoping to find something truly enlightening, but I agree with Joe as much as ever. Organization happens, optimally like cells in a body.

          • Jan Irvin
            July 10, 2011 at 9:03 pm

            Did you review the trivium information which was the core of what the conversation with Joe was about? Larken’s discussion is based on dialectic/logic – which is understood best by having first an understanding of the prerequisites discussed – knowledge, understanding, wisdom – always in that order. You’re skipping to the middle and saying it’s bullshit. Are you able to argue against the logic he brings up on a point by point basis of it’s (so-called) absurdity? Or is your only point that societies organize? Currently our society has been overrun by bankers and corrupt politicians. We don’t have sovereignty. We don’t have autonomy. We don’t have freedom. See what happens if you don’t pay your property tax. See what happens if you don’t register your car, which by very definition means you’re giving ownership to someone else – the state.

            Yes, cells organize. That’s a red herring to the conversation of government. Somehow you’re confusing the biology of an organism with governments. They’re completely unrelated topics. There’s a huge difference in giving up all autonomy to a daddy state that forces people by gun point to participate in something that’s clearly based on coercion – the mob, and their thugs with guns and billy clubs.

            In what way does society being run by an elite mob compare to cells in a body again? :-/

    • tom smith
      July 22, 2011 at 5:28 pm

      Greg,
      Libertarians are a political (read; government) party. Q: Do you really need a gov’t to get a mule? Q: Do you think that governments keep people from being selfish? Q: Have you ever read ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You’ by Leo Tolstoy? Q: Who governs you? Q: Does that governor (government) work to produce conditions that aid in your growth and happiness? Q: Do you think war is murder? Q: Do you think organizations can exist for short time periods in order to achieve limited specific goals? Q: Do you approve the methods used to get you clean water? Q: Do you think Chief Joseph approved? Q: Do you think it is right for Congress to judge its success by the number of laws it passes? Q: Do you think the police are there to help you? Q: Do you think the power to tax is the power to destroy? Q: Do you think anarchy and chaos are synonymous? Q: Do you think you could see one day start to finish w/out gov’t? Q: Do you think because everyone needs healthcare it should be free? Q: Do you think the same way about food? Q: Do you think we are in a stable state now? “Any person that lays a hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant. And I declare that person my enemy” P. Kropotkin. Greg you are dangerously close to being an enemy, so with that I’ll say I love you and I hope those neural networks keep making connections. You are trying and there is no failure in that. GODSPEED, tbs ps — CORPORATIONS—-HOLD SHAREHOLDERS LIABLE WHATEVER THE ISSUE. peace

  7. greg
    July 11, 2011 at 1:27 am

    I do not disagree that we are run by an elite mob. You are not going to see me defending our govt. I too am disgusted, so that’s not even my issue. As far as the dialectic, it’s a completely make believe scenario where he’s assuming the alien has no concept of leadership or hierarchy, and it seems silly to me. Hierarchies are a natural product of nature. It is clearly seen in our fellow primates. As far as the little remark I made about a body, all the cells do their jobs, but it’s the ones in the brain that ultimately decide the fate of the others. So why does the alien not understand hierarchy or leadership when it is an undeniable product of nature? Then he says no one can describe what govt is for exactly. Well dictionary.com gives me 3 pretty succinct definitions. Just because an idea is somewhat abstract and relies upon other rather abstract information, does not make it illegitimate, just harder to fully grasp. What’s your fallacy term for a completely made up scenario being used as logical basis for an argument?

    Maybe if I heard what the end vision was for taking down govt I could argue the point and call bullshit, but so far I don’t even have anything to call bullshit on. It just seems like an incomplete thought. History has shown us that someone or group always rises to power after a govt falls, and after messy revolutions, the ones who take over are usually especially unsavory. And this is because, like Joe Rogan said, 300 million people need to have cooperation and direction, and that is done with some centralization of power and executive abilities. So like them or not, leaders arise naturally.

    Again, to be clear, I am not supporting all the obviously terrible things the plutocracy known as our govt does and I think we are in dire need of major reform. My problem is that these discussions are becoming mainstream, and govt bashing has become the grounds for all your favorite fox news friendly office holders to take power. They are the ones aggressively tearing apart unions, cutting spending programs for those in need, trying to cut social security, deregulating the banksters, and basically giving corporations carte blanche in the name of less govt. So my issue is with the direct practical effect of this rhetoric on our political front. The libertarian ideal is absolutely shredding the last of the govt’s ability to do the one that it was meant to do, protect the people.

    • Jan Irvin
      July 12, 2011 at 11:56 am

      If you feel it’s an incomplete thought, why not state that, and state, constructively, what you think it needs to help complete the thought? If the foundation and logic of the premises are solid and it only needs more work, then we can help to finish it.

      The idea of an alien is someone who is foreign to this planet and our systems of social engineering – that’s the point, and of course it’s make believe. Galileo did the the same when she showed how the earth revolves around the sun. Plato was famous for using these techniques as well.Just because it’s a made up scenario does not invalidate it.

      The trivium and quadrivium, which Joe is entirely unfamiliar with, even after our interview, is the core of what the society would function on post government.

      It seems a bit of a leap to me to assume that we need some system where we give our autonomy way, such as government, as our only solution. It seems to me that this is all we’re used to thinking about, so this is all many can see. Study Buckminster Fuller, for example. He’s got some great ideas and history of how things could and should work.

      And Fox news only bashes the governments that Murdock doesn’t himself like. They work for the corporations, so of course they’re going to union break, et al.

      If everyone had the trivium and critical thinking, which is happening now, then we won’t need others to protect us. That’s what sovereignty is about. A town of people elect a sheriff to protect them, but this doesn’t mean that the sheriff controls every aspect of their lives, and in the 1800s, you carried your own gun for protection.

      • greg
        July 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm

        okay, well I feel like I am repeating myself, so I don’t know if it is worth continuing this conversation, but I will try once more. The premise is flawed because, again, hierarchy is a product of nature, and leaders arise naturally. larger, more complex systems tend toward larger, more complex hierarchies.

        I can make up a dialectic too, except in mine the alien comes down and says “I don’t understand. democracy? What is that? 3 branches? this makes no sense. Why don’t you just have a dictatorship like we do because it is much more efficient.” That’s no more silly than his dialectic, though I didn’t go on for 40 minutes to get you emotionally involved. He’s assuming no govt is the next level of progress and there is no basis for that assumption, except for “our govt really sucks.”

        I don’t know if you get out much, but there is an abundance of stupid and selfish people out there. Even people who try to be good do selfish things, especially when under pressure. This is why poverty breeds crime. People in need will lie, cheat and steal and form organizations to do it better(gangs/mobs). Voluntarism, unless I am really missing something here, basically is anarchy, which is basically a reset of social darwinism. Sick, wounded, ugly, or just dull? Darwin will take care of ya. It’s better for the gene pool in the long run. I admit, sometimes I would like nothing more than to see all the stupid and selfish people just disappear from earth, but where’s the compassion in that? Does the trivium account for compassion? Maybe my faith in the human race isn’t as strong as yours, because I deal with lots of low income people, and I see how quickly it comes to dog eat dog.

        My most pressing question though is what is to be done about the corporations? They have a strangle hold over us. How can we even attempt to keep such monoliths in check, unless we have a trumping power that can bust monopolies and enforce regulation? For example, GM food should be outlawed, and everywhere but the states gm foods must be labeled, so they do not really sell. Are our chances of getting gm foods and chemical additives labeled going to go up with less govt? I mean I get it. The govt is grossly intrusive with personal affairs and egregious with their wars. Patriot act, anti-terrorism scams, marijuana raids… but it’s because our govt is doing a bad job, not that the concept of govt itself is bad. So how do we get in check the organizations that are actually killing us with chemicals, ecological destruction, profiting on incarcerating people, and internalizing profits while externalizing costs, causing the greatest inequality gap in American history, and currently in the world?

      • greg
        July 12, 2011 at 10:08 pm

        I am checking out some buck minster fuller stuff. I do feel like I am missing something.

    • Dan
      February 21, 2012 at 8:26 am

      “Hierarchies are a natural product of nature.” Perhaps if you take a moment to study the difference between “hierarchy” and “holarchy”…

      • Jan Irvin
        February 21, 2012 at 9:18 am

        This is discussed in part 4.

  8. greg
    July 14, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    okay. I listened to some Bucky interviews, and of course I like him alot. He was definitely a brilliant man. But what he is advocating is a transcendent, technological step in how we organize. He recognizes centralization of organization even beyond nations when he talks about multinational corporations. He too says globalization is inevitable, and while he was not specifically speaking of govt, he was speaking generally about human organization, so NWO???!? Well of course, hopefully not the 1984 police state many fear, but the interconnectedness and technology of the world today will inevitably lead to some form of world organization.

    Of course he is not a fan of govt because of its corruptibility, and I would not disagree with his points because it is true that psychopaths strive for positions of power and are good at attaining those positions. Also, money corrupts. So what he proposes as a central authority for organization is a computer system that calculates resources and human needs, and makes decisions for us to make sure everyone’s needs are met at the highest efficiency. And also everyone can directly connect to the system to input their own needs as a form of direct voting without intermediary politicians. This idea has come to be called a resource based economy, and is basically what has been popularized recently by the zeitgeist films. I like the idea of RBE a lot and think some form of RBE is pretty much necessary for our survival in the future, because it is true that scarcity is almost totally a product of mismanagement of resources.

    So this is a much different thing than what I am hearing here, which is more the libertarian line of “no nanny state, get out your guns.” Bucky proposes everyone can and should be pay rolled regardless of their capacity for contribution. He is trouble shooting poverty and hunger, and thus most crime. He has an actual proposal that transcends govt and recognizes inevitable centralization, and doesn’t just say govt’s bad. So this discussion IS worth having. My Question is who will design the computer system? Who will upkeep it? Who will input the data? Who will implement it’s decisions? What about hackers? Any of these people would be in positions of great power.

    Again, I don’t feel like you’re getting my point that govt bashing is not practically helpful at all. You may think you are outside the box or whatever, but you’re really not. “Govt is bad” is an idea popularized by Reagan. It is a right wing mainstay. Whether you like it or not, democracy is the best tool we have at the moment, and bringing this anti-govt rhetoric is not healthy if you look at the politicians who are actually hurting us with it. Even Ron Paul, for all his great ideas on ending wars, drug wars, and auditing the fed, is a worrisome choice. What is his plan for the people? laissez-faire free market creates corporate and capitalist kings where we are all serfs. Freedom… autonomy…. carry your guns… You sound just like a right wing talk show.

    • Morgan Andresen
      July 14, 2011 at 9:46 pm

      “Again, I don’t feel like you’re getting my point that govt bashing is not practically helpful at all. You may think you are outside the box or whatever, but you’re really not. “Govt is bad” is an idea popularized by Reagan. It is a right wing mainstay.”

      Your attacking the arguement and the arguer by denying it with the only evidence being “It is a right wing mainstay.”

      It has the exact same intellectual force as: “Hitler breathed air, ergo breathing air is evil and anti-semitic.”

      “Whether you like it or not, democracy is the best tool we have at the moment,”

      A statement isn’t an arguement, where is your proof? All the politicians are corrupt lying scum, Obama lied about withdrawl, Bush lied about tons of stuff, and they both take/took your money and tell/told you not to do things you should logically be able to do.

      Would you pay for things you didn’t want, if it wasn’t government making you pay for them?
      Would you leave the rules you have to live by up to the random gamble of an election?

      Why do you think a democracy is our best choice? YOUR two party system offered up two candidates WHO ADMITTED PUBLICLY TO BOTH BEING MEMBERS OF THE SAME SECRET SOCIETY!

      Irrefutable evidence:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPh7sUvhZ3E

      Its time for you to wake up and start looking at evidence instead of attacking that which makes you uncomfortable.

      • greg
        July 15, 2011 at 2:19 am

        I know about the skull and crossbones stuff. I am not fully convinced of what exactly that means to us, but I’m aware it can’t be a good thing. Again, I’m not going to defend the people we have in power, but I will say there are a small minority of senators and representatives that actually do represent their people, but maybe I would appear naive if I thought we could get more of those.

        About the right wing mainstay thing, Your analogy is totally off. I am saying something more like “you say govt is bad, the worst of our politicians say govt is bad, people who listen to you are going to be more likely to listen to/support those politicians.” The immediate consequence of supporting that rhetoric is how you get crap like the tea party. I am not saying you are evil or that you support crooked politicians, but less informed people would hear the same talk from the most crooked of them and assume it is good because you have validated it. So are you not allowed to say something just because another party says it? Of course you are, but that is all you are saying here, and that is almost all they say, or at least what they base almost every argument on. And they aren’t totally lying. I mean, less regulation, less taxes on the wealthy, and less social spending is less govt, but it’s all bad for us. So the association is not unjustified. You may not walk like a duck, but you sure quack just like one, and I’m sorry, but that’s disappointing to me.

        You are right that I have no irrefutable proof that democracy is the best thing we have right now, other than I don’t currently see a significantly better governance in place. Nor do I think we cannot do better. But your idea of replacing govt simply with voluntarism, with no centralization, is not a viable step toward progress. I don’t know what to say that I haven’t said in every other post in different words. You cannot maintain a stable decentralized condition, assuming you could possibly achieve one in the first place. Nature simply will not allow it. It will tend toward either chaos or organization, which tends toward centralization. No man is a lone automaton, or to be cliche, no man is an island. You may disagree and say that when everyone’s armed with the trivium(and a hand gun), we will all be fine. Well, that seems unrealistic to me, and I don’t think we will find common ground. If you want to actually talk progress, like conversion to an RBE, I am totally onboard, but a gun on everyone’s hip is not the answer.

        Start looking up evidence that makes me uncomfortable? I am never not uncomfortable. I am extremely worried about our future, but that’s no excuse to look at my practical reality less rationally. I am aware of the occult stuff and am watching your latest youtube post because it is all very interesting, but much of it is not news to me. And aside from that, even keeping up with the less occult current events is enough to have one panicked. But as you guys established multiple times in your interview, everyone who disagrees with you is just brainwashed. WELL I THINK YOUR BRAINWASHED MAAAAAN.

        And MY 2 party system? Okay. As if I’m glorifying it. Sometimes the choice of the lesser of 2 evils is one worth making. Rather lose an arm or a leg? I know the answer to that one and I’ll vote till I can find a fix or a way out that doesn’t kill me.

        Okay, so we can both agree, drastic change is needed, but that looks like as far as we’re going to get. I am still really curious though what you think should be done about corporations, which was the main focus in my post before Bucky. This time, so you see it, since I’m not entirely sure you are actually reading all my posts. WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT CORPORATIONS? And for that matter capitalism and the economic system as a whole?

        • greg
          July 16, 2011 at 12:03 am

          Actually, I want to retract my lesser of 2 evils metaphor. It is a little more like loss of a kidney vs. loss of a heart, because one party is clearly far worse than the other.

        • Morgan
          November 18, 2011 at 9:58 pm

          “less taxes on the wealthy”
          So making money by providing a service to others is a punishable offense? Taxes are morally unjustifiable. You should watch some of Stefan Molyneauxs podcasts on the subject(stefbot on youtube).

          What we need is a society and justice system built around the non-aggression principle, basically non-aggression against non-aggressors. If I make money by selling something I have provided the buyer with a service, otherwise they wouldn’t have voluntarily paid for it. This is in stark contrast with governmental “services” which are monopolized so that nobody may compete with the government(water, sewage, garbage, police, courts, military etc.) or the government can forcibly make you pay for them so no alternatives could be profitable.(roads, schools, etc.)

          If all interactions were voluntary and didn’t involve threatening innocent people with violence, kidnapping aka imprisonment, or theft we would be much better off.

          I don’t know what you are talking about centralization for, it has nothing to do with it. If an industry became completely centralized in one company while adhering to the non-aggression principle it would be entirely acceptable, because the non-aggression principle protects everyone’s right to compete with that company if they want to, so only a company that is superior to everyone else could possibly become centralized. Also in reality no company takes 100% market share(without governmental help) as there are always niche markets and overlap. Also if profits rise too high its an indicator to competition to come in and undercut them.

          Centralization is fine, stealing and threatening innocent people isn’t.

          Corporations ARE A CREATION OF GOVERNMENT. The big problem with corporations is what is called “the corporate veil”, limited liability, or corporate person-hood depending on who you talk to. This is a GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE. With no coercive government force backing them shareholders and CEOs would be personally responsible for the damage their companies caused. The big corporations are government’s pets, its literally the economics of fascism.

  9. July 15, 2011 at 11:29 am

    I really enjoyed your discussion with Larken Rose. I think he has quite a few interesting ideas which can help us to better understand what government really is and the role it plays in our lives.

    I happened to come across an interesting site about Larken Rose recently, though, which calls some of his tax arguments into question. I wanted to provide that to the readers here as a counter-point to his tax arguments.

    At this point I do believe that most Americans are not liable for the so-called “Income Tax”; but I am skeptical of Larken’s so-called 861 argument. The arguments against this approach are described in this post:

    http://www.quatlosers.com/larken_rose.htm

  10. Carl
    June 7, 2012 at 11:08 am

    And what if people choose not to believe and act as Mr. Rose believes they should?

    • Jan Irvin
      June 8, 2012 at 9:31 am

      That’s covered in depth in the 4 part series and in his book.

Leave a Reply