Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Email | TuneIn | RSS
On this episode of Liberty Under Attack Radio, we cover relatively new ground–the Bible and Natural Law.
Last week, a Patron patreon posted a link to episode #92 of the UnSpun Podcast, which is titled, “Becoming the Heroes to Our Descendants – A Legacy of Natural Law.” It featured Jan Irvin, Bill Joslin, and Clint Richardson and was released on October 31st, 2017.
In this episode, Jan, Clint, and Bill begin by discussing anarchism–their claim is that anarchy is lawlessness and chaos, yet they try to justify that by saying it is ACTUALLY legalism, or the use of government law to subvert natural law.
They continue by discussing the Bible and how it is in fact THE natural law, NOT a religion as it is so commonly understood. You’ll notice the use of “sovereign citizen” rhetoric by Clint throughout (i.e. the “strawman,” “a vessel in court,” or, admiralty law, as well as the propagation of THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES myth).
Obviously, Jason Paradise and I have some issues with this discussion, which will make up the large part of this episode, along with clips from UnSpun Podcast #92.
We highly recommend you check out episode #92 in its entirety–click here to do so, and make sure to check out the show notes for more information.
Please enjoy, share this podcast around, and consider financially supporting the podcast–we need YOUR help to keep this going. You can become a patron on Patreon for exclusive content by clicking the image below. You can also donate crypto-currencies by clicking here.
SHOW NOTES:
Kyle Rearden’s Article on State Citizenship
LUA Podcast #45: Allodial Title vs. Fee Simple — The State is Your Landlord
Your post is a complete misrepresentation of our show. If you’re going to comment on our work, at least do it honestly. Thanks.
This is also a series, which you’ve linked to the LAST part of, not providing the entire thing.
It’s beyond ridiculous if people can’t grasp that the Bible is natural law.
We also don’t discuss sovereign citizen as you falsely present.
How about we have a debate?
Anarchy is a joke. We’ve covered it extensively, too.
https://www.gnosticmedia.com/unspun-068-clint-richardson-jacob-duellman-red-pill-sunday-school/
https://www.gnosticmedia.com/unspun-086-clint-richardson-red-pill-sunday-school-pt-2/
https://www.gnosticmedia.com/unspun-088-clint-richardson-red-pill-sunday-school-pt-3/
https://www.gnosticmedia.com/unspun-092-clint-richardson-bill-joslin-becoming-heroes-descendants-legacy-natural-law/
Jan,
It wasn’t simply a post, it was a nearly 2 hour podcast episode. It leads me to believe you just read the show description, without actually listening to the discussion.
If you would have listened, you would have known that I openly stated multiple times that I have only listened to a handful of your podcasts and that some of my concerns may have been addressed there. I was unaware that this was a series–as was said at the start, a regular listener to your show (and mine) wanted to hear my thoughts on THIS episode.
As far as the Bible being Natural Law, I’m ignorant on the subject. I haven’t read it, but, in this episode, I don’t think you three bore your burden of proof–I concede that, now that I know, I should listen to the rest of the series to get a full understanding.
Sure, you may not have openly “discussed” “sovereign citizens,” but Clint utilized their rhetoric and buzzwords throughout the episode. If you had listened to our response, I point them out as soon as they happen, every time. To claim that he didn’t would be an outright lie.
I’m sure as hell not going to debate someone who will read a show description for a podcast episode and comment without even hearing us out. Jason and I put forth a good faith and honest attempt at critiquing what was said in UnSpun #92 (hell, we each listened to it three times), and if you won’t give us the same respect, I’m not going to even consider a debate, if there was even a subject that we could agree upon for it.
As far as anarchy, your interpretation and my practice of it (from what I heard in UnSpun #92) is 1000% different from mine. Legalism and lawfare (the government’s use of law as a weapon of war) are certainly a joke and are detrimental to freedom. I fail to understand how anarchism can be “lawlessness” and “law” at the same time (which you would have heard if you had listened to the episode).
Thanks for commenting, I guess, but please listen to the episode if you’re going to respond again. How would you feel if someone read the show notes of one of your episodes and didn’t even bother to listen? You wouldn’t give them an ounce of your time–you would tell them to listen to the episode first, I presume.
Have a good one, Jan.
-Shane
Just wanted to address this show note statement: “their claim is that anarchy is lawlessness and chaos, yet they try to justify that by saying it is ACTUALLY legalism, or the use of government law to subvert natural law.”
Just to clarify, my stance is not that anarchy is some kind of lawlessness of chaos, but given in the evitability of human conflict (even minor disputes) some form of rule will eventually emerge and with that the same issues with concentration of power etc issues we have with current government – in other words, government by another name. Secondly, the statement most make that anarchy is “rules without rulers” is more properly called nomocracy and my stance of a distributed “monopoly on violence” (which is not an actual monopoly but an alternative to a monopoly) is an effort to achieve the goals many anarchists seek while addressing the inherent failures I see in the general rhetoric.
One last note, it is a huge misrepresentation of my views to state that I agree with Clint and Jan – the three of us are not speaking with one voice – my view is distinctly different than both of theirs. For instance, Clint draws on the intellectual history of France to define anarchy (outlined in one of the shows) and thus the current use of the word is based on ignorance of the term – whereby I tend to define by how it is currently used (’cause Wiggenstien and all).
You’d not get any real sense of my stance from any of the shows with Clint. I didn’t have much input nor opportunity to expand upon it at all. The sheepdog shows barely scratches the surface of my stance and the conceptual foundations it is built from.
All the best,
If I get a chance I’ll listen to your broadcast