The Cashless Society – A Digital Trojan Horse

[Download the PDF of this article]

Many people herald the current digital age, some of whom openly welcome (what they consider to be) the inevitable arrival of ubiquitous micro-chipping, in all of its purported glory. Yet, what if some bureaucrat possessed the ability to just turn off your chip on a whim, based upon his so-called “rulemaking authority?” This would be worse than having your bank accounts frozen, for you wouldn’t have any other form of money to fall back on; if it continued long enough, then you would have your electricity cut off, you would not be able to buy groceries, and your mortgaged home would be foreclosed upon (or alternatively, you’d be evicted from your apartment). The implications of giving someone else that much power over your own life merits serious reflection upon the capabilities of such technologies in the first place.


A cashless society, simply put, is “a society in which purchases of goods or services are made by credit card or electronic funds transferral, rather than with cash or checks.” So, right there, the definition itself tells you that the cashless society is totally electronic, and more importantly, digital. Remember, the baby-boomers grew up with checks and cash, whereas Generation X grew up with plastic cards and wire transfers. Scott Shay coined the term econgularity (a portmanteau for the economic singularity), which he defined as:


“[A]n unfortunate approaching moment in time when our current technological snooping prowess, the ease of big data manipulation, and our sprint to a cashless economy will converge. This will happen in such a way as to permit governments to exercise incredibly powerful control over all human behavior.”


Whether the unimpeded cashless society will lead to the econgularity, or is the economic singularity, is an academic difference at best. The takeaway here is that the wholesale digitization of money will ultimately benefit tyrannical governments at the expense of the people, because they control the technology directly themselves, or otherwise indirectly through their multinational corporations.

Historically, tyrants have always wished for a cradle-to-grave dragnet surveillance mechanism with which to intimidate and rule their captive populations. With the advent of information technology, those who have an unmitigated lust for power can do so with relative ease and near total impunity. Modeled off of panopticons (such as the Presidio Modelo), the interlocking virtual networks of financial institutions, social media, and various databases effectively form an amalgamated version of the Orwellian Big Brother.

Applying the Hegalian Dialectic as a formula, the federal government has used the lame excuse of “terrorism” to construct a digital panopticon that the Administrative Agencies will use as their easiest investigative tool. Back in November of 2002, Fox News reported:


“A massive database that the government will use to monitor every purchase made by every American citizen is a necessary tool in the war on terror, the Pentagon said Wednesday.”


I don’t remember any enumerated power in the United States Constitution that delegated to either the Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court the duty to “monitor every purchase made by every American citizen.” At about the same time, the New York Times reported that:


Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as ‘a virtual, centralized grand database.’” [emphasis added]


Excuse me, but isn’t the constitutional purpose of the military to “suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions?” Oh, wait, that’s right…it’s the militia whose supposed to do that, because, remember, even though Congress has the power “to raise and support Armies,” there is supposed to be “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” [Art. I § 8], which kind of begs the question as to why there is a U.S. Army or Pentagon at all, but I digress. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits the warfare state to go data mining, and as icing on the cake, Joe Sansone commented that:


“The Information Awareness Office (IAO) seeks what it calls ‘Total Information Awareness.’ The agency has even adopted the new world order symbol of the pyramid with the all knowing eye hovering above it that is seen on the back of a one dollar Federal Reserve note.”


Although I am not a big fan of learning the intricacies of symbology, even I am disconcerted how indiscriminate random surveillance can be used in much the same manner as H.G. Wells described back in the late 1930s. The end result of such a program of dehumanization would probably look something like Finland back in 2003:


“When Tom Huppunen takes the bus to class every day, the government knows the stop he gets on, the stop he gets off and the time he does so. When Anna Komonen makes a call on her cell phone, the phone company not only can record her call but it can also pinpoint where she is standing at the time she makes it. If she is ever under investigation, the police can use global positioning system, or GPS, technology to watch her every move, or at least that of her phone. And when Mikko Valimaki was pulled over by the traffic police for speeding last summer, they simply punched a few numbers into a database, found out how much money he makes and fined him accordingly. Welcome to Finland, where almost everything the citizenry does happens under the government’s watchful eyes.”


Suffice it to say, widespread acquiescence to such ubiquitous invasions of privacy is the desired end for tyrants to accomplish in this arena, for it sets the stage later for even more oppression, as targeted individuals would be fretting about how they are going to justify their actions before some pot-bellied bureaucrat. This is not to say anything about the uncanny profitability of governments and corporations buying and selling the intricate details of your life to each other, as well as to foreigners. Regulatory capture, much?

How is this panopticon to be coercively enforced? The answer to that is biometrics. Whether due to shoplifting, identity theft, social welfare fraud, Alzhemier’s disease, or counterfeiting, the Establishment will waste no excuse to set the Hegelian Dialectic into action. In the early 2000s, KEYE-TV, a local CBS-affiliate right here in Austin (the capitol of Texas), issued a newscast about how Kroeger’s grocery stores in the nearby Bryan-College Station area were beta testing fingerprint authentication technology that were linked to either your credit, debit, or checking accounts (also, either your telephone number or your driver’s license would act as a password). This was all being done in the name of preventing “identity theft,” the result of which is acquiescence to gross invasions of privacy. Towards the end of the news report, the anchorwoman offhandly commented that at least citizens weren’t linked into the Austin Police Department’s database, to which the weatherman joked in response that citizens were not yet at this point, but then admonished her by saying “don’t tell them the secret!

If you’ve ever seen those ink pads at any bank, where if you try to cash a check without having an account at that bank, they will insist that you give them a thumbprint on the check itself; this is emblematic of what Harvard law professor Glenn Cohen described as “function creep,” which he defined as where an invention was introduced for one purpose but then used for something quite differently in the future, “like social security numbers” as he put it. This incrementalization is used by the government to slip under the rug something that would be wholesale rejected by the population had it been introduced all at once. So, how would a social engineer acclimatize the public to give digital fingerprints at the grocery store? By mandating earlier that inked fingerprints be given on checks by those who do not have a bank account, of course.

Biometrics isn’t just limited to fingerprints, unfortunately. As Clyde Crews wrote:


“Biometric technologies — voiceprints, retina, iris, and face scanners, digitized fingerprints, and implanted chips — can benefit us. Such technologies will soon be used in cell phones, mobile computers, cars doors, doorknobs and office keys — basically everywhere. Biometrics can bolster online commerce, help locate a lost child, and transmit medical information to doctors. They promise increased privacy by preventing identity theft.”


With such a glowing description of the technology itself, Crews goes on to say that the only real danger is the government using the technology for its own nefarious ends. Crews portrays the technology as the result of the free market, but is it really? Alfred Hermida wrote:


“Biometrics is a nascent industry, which analysts say is worth between $240m to $400m. Rival technologies are vying for lucrative government contracts. These include fingerprint and facial recognition, but also iris recognition, which looks for a pattern in the eye, and hand geometry, which analyses the layout of the hand.” [emphasis added]


Considering the heavy role the military-industrial complex plays in the development of biometric technology, I am left to conclude that it is the government intervention in the market that is the real reason why biometrics is being pushed so damn hard.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, there is also the microchip agenda to consider as well. In 2002, Reuters reported that Applied Digital Solutions, the creators of the VeriChip, were encouraging people to get implantable microchips. They even went so far as to advertise for a “Get Chipped” nationwide promotion intended to literally encourage the mass chipping of Americans. Three years later, Amal Graafstra voluntarily had an RFID microchip implanted into the web of his left hand for non-medical purposes, such as for keyless entry to his car and as a login to his computers. By the time Graafstra had been chipped, both CNN and BBC had already run stories about how scientists are developing implantable brain chips to slow down, or potentially reverse, Alzhemier’s disease.

Perhaps those Christians really were correct when it came to the mark of the beast as being a stamp on the hand (or in the mind) of nearly all people, without which no one could buy or sell. Fast forward about a decade later to 2012, when Brandon Turbeville reported that:


“Recently, India has launched a nationwide program involving the allocation of a Unique Identification Number (UID) to every single one of its 1.2 billion residents. Each of the numbers will be tied to the biometric data of the recipient using three different forms of information – fingerprints, iris scans, and pictures of the face. All ten digits of the hand will be recorded, and both eyes will be scanned.”


I guess it was only a matter of time, as the US military had already battle-tested facial recognition software upon hapless Afghans and Iraqis. Of course, such diabolically invasive biometric technology is being rolled out in India to allegedly halt “social welfare fraud.” Maybe if the Indian government didn’t have a massively bureaucratic welfare state, then there wouldn’t be a “need” to legally mandate its citizenry to be fingerprinted and scanned like tax cattle. But that can’t ever happen here in America, right?

Would the mostly digitized Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) ever be replaced by another fiat government currency, in order to forcibly implement the cashless society against the American people even more? Dmitry Medvedev unveiled a “United Future World Currency ” coin at the G8 meeting back in 2009. Based upon the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), which are implemented by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Medvedev’s coin is a prototype for a global currency. In light of the austerity imposed by the World Bank and IMF upon subjected nations, it wouldn’t be too far fetched to think that super-state currencies (like the proposed Amero) would be used as a stepping stone towards something like Medvedev’s coin. Bretton Woods, much?

Unfortunately, FRNs are fractionally reserved and lended to the United States federal government at interest, which is the backbone mechanism of central banking. Seeing that the Amero or Medvedev’s coin would require an even more centralized central bank, (much like the European Central Bank that issues the Euro), such does not bode well for either our freedom or the future of sound money. Combine this with an concomitant socialist oyster, and what you find yourself in is a situation whereby people who accept welfare entitlement handouts are doing so using a currency that is worth less than nothing; a kind of debt money, if you like. Those who rely on food stamps are not issued checks like they used to be, but instead receive electronic deposits on their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards.

Shopping, as a tedious consumerist drudgery, has already become cashless and high-tech. What initially began as convenient and accessible online shopping (such as through the ever useful and often cost effective and, morphed into supermarkets implementing “smart tagging” as early as 2003. Smart shelves, smart clothes, smart tires, and even smart shopping carts have all been implemented on the alleged grounds that doing so would deter “shoplifting,” thereby invoking the Hegelian Dialectic yet again. This technology is only possible because of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, which uses radio frequency waves to transmit information, and is also the same foundational technology for human micro-chipping. The idea here is to build an “Internet of Things,” whereby nearly every single mass-produced item can be catalogued and traced all throughout the supply chain, into the customer’s own home, and then back out again into the landfill.

Another key use of RFID technology is what has been alternately referred to as contactless payment or near-field communication (NFC). Without even swiping your credit or debit card, NFCs like Visa payWave are used for the sake of convenience; yet, NFCs are not just limited to plastic cards, for they can also be used via smartphone as well (NFCs could also take a form like the wristwatches in Hong Kong). NFCs such as Google Wallet, MasterCard’s PayPass, PayPal’s smartphone app, the iZettle app, and the Square card-reader are just a few of the currently available ways someone could use their plastic card or smartphone to digitally transfer funds.

Some people might think that the digitization of money is emblematic of their undefined notion of “progress,” but what are the real world consequences for such a top-down method of trade? In November of 2012, Patrick Henningsen wrote that:


“It has long been the dream of collectivists and technocratic elites to eliminate the semi-unregulated cash economy and black markets in order to maximise taxation and to fully control markets. If the cashless society is ushered in, they will have near complete control over the lives of individual people.”


In September of 2013, the Times of Israel reported that the Israeli government is planning to eventually ban the use of cash in order to deter “tax evasion” & “money laundering” (are you beginning to see how this game works?). Nine months later, Gregory Baskin reported that:


“A cashless society experiment in the United Kingdom resulted in mixed reactions from merchants on June 21, 2014. The project took place in a shopping district in Manchester, England, where electronic-only payments were the stated preference. On that day, Beech Road boasted the moniker of being the United Kingdom’s first-ever cashless shopping area. The exercise was the brainchild of Handepay, a card payment processor. Some business owners and managers liked the prospect of a cashless society while others did not. Some displayed signs informing customers they had opted-out of the experiment. Others, however, felt the eventual elimination of cash in society to be inevitable, adopting an ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ attitude toward the event.”


This system is going to be thrust down your throat, whether you consent to it or not. At this juncture, it’s only a matter of time; it’s already happened to the Indians, the Israelis are next, and the British were subjected to beta testing as of last week. What makes you think that Australians, Canadians, or even you Americans are going to be immune from this growing cancer of the cashless society?

Presumably, what if you were able to rearrange your life to the degree that you only used cash to buy groceries and pay bills? Even then, you’re still going to have to be vigilant, because there are tracker chips in the $100 bills, which the government claims are there to deter “counterfeiting.” Remember, only 3% of the M1 money supply is cash, so you’re going to be in the stark minority of consumers. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there, for those foil strips in the $20 bills may have indeed been replaced by embedded RFID chips.

What is the fall-out from the cashless society? Surely, such a domineering system would be virtually impervious, wouldn’t you think so? Last October, EBT cards experienced a nationwide malfunction. Whether it was due to the government shutdown, or a computer system upgrade, the difference is immaterial; the moral of the story is that everyone on food stamps was temporarily cut off from buying groceries. Considering the fact that ~ 82% of the ~ 315,000,000 Americans are urbanized, such an overly centralized method of payment only spells even more of a disaster should there again be something as minor as an digital snag, no matter how temporary.

Consider also the monsters people conjure up in their own minds. Why should a mugger risk exposure and injury to himself when he could digitally pickpocket you instead? If you doubt me as to whether this is possible, I would encourage you to take notes of the predictive programming elements in the game movie version of WATCH_DOGS before telling me that I’m full of it. Similarly, in a grid-down scenario of any kind involving a (perhaps, formerly) cashless society, not only would everyone be unable to purchase the necessities they need to survive, but also the fact that everyone’s life savings would have been wiped from the servers, given enough time. Wouldn’t you think that the people affected by a prolonged emergency like this would be happy about it?

Probably the most important idea to understand is the fact that the cashless society is inimical to sound money. The characteristics of sound money require anything that functions as if it were currency to be:


  • Transportable (a medium of exchange)
  • Divisible (a unit of account)
  • Fungible (units are interchangeable)
  • Durable (degradation resistant)
  • Recognizable (preferably, counterfeit resistant)
  • Expensive to bring into circulation
  • A store of value, and
  • Anonymous


I seriously doubt that digital FRNs, or their future replacements, satisfy all these necessary characteristics of sound money. Digitized currencies are only as durable as long as the power stays on, they have no inherent value (but only in the sense of what they are able to buy in the moment), and they are certainly not anonymous. Remember, 97% of the money supply is digital; so, digitized fiat currency is the problem.

Should you close your bank account, in light of the incremental “function creep” inherent to the cashless society? Before you do, consider easing yourself off of banking first. Determine whether or not your credit and/or debit cards are NFC or otherwise RFID readable; if so, ask your bank whether they offer plastic non-RFID cards (like they used to). If not, consider cutting up those cards and sticking to your checkbook only. Next, cash out your certificates of deposit, and then close all your bank accounts. Ideally, the goal here is gradually ease yourself off of banking entirely until you are “unbankedwithout setting off any red flags, if at all possible (at least until such time as free banking has been reinvigorated within the remnants of the free market).

Doing this successfully, though, also requires practical experience in using alternative financial services (AFSs). Whether they be in the form of money orders, traveler’s checks, or prepaid debit cards, AFSs might just offer you a way to step in and out of the police state control grid at will. However, be forewarned that the government has been trying to clamp down on some AFSs; thus, there is the possibility of controlled opposition being in play, so just be careful using them.

Alternative currencies present quite possibly the best chance any of us realistically have in side-stepping the cashless society. Physical cash is still useful, but you’ll need to block whatever tracer chips they may have put in some of the bills. There have been some successes with placing the bills in envelopes of aluminum foil, and RFID blocking wallets appear promising as well. Despite what some doom-and-gloomers might reasonably infer, there is no solid economic reason to suspect that cash will be phased out because it is still useful for low-price purchases, garage sales, flea markets, and farmer’s markets, all of which require cash in order to trade; the only way cash would become extinct is if the American federal government imitated Israel in her effort to outlaw cash itself.

In addition to cash, there is also specie, such as gold bullion and silver coins, as well as local paper currencies. As of today, the spot price for gold is $1,316/oz and silver is $21/oz. I personally consider gold to be better for savings and as backing for privately issued local currencies, whereas silver would be more ideal for common day-to-day trade. Local paper currencies such as time dollars (such as the self-issued barter credit known as the Anarcho-Jesse Labor Note, which also contained Jesse’s job skills and email address printed on the bills), or product vouchers (such as Canadian tire money, which is often referred to as Canada’s second national currency), are cash alternatives to FRNs. Barter networks, such as the LETSystem, are another promising avenue; but, if you want to go really old school, then learn how to use an American Indian trading blanket.

The cashless society has been in the making for over a decade, so nobody has any excuse anymore to claim that it’s a rumor, other than ignorance. We should remind each other that governments do not have rights; only people do. So, feel free to shop at thrift stores to avoid RFID tagging on clothing, or microwave a $100 bill, if you feel like it. It’s one thing to use FRNs because it is the “coin of the realm,” but it is even worse to use a digitized version of it. In order to defeat central banking, it is also necessary to rebuke the cashless society because they are tied at the hip, for all intents and purposes. Should you choose to become an advocate of sound money, then go physical.

License “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “license” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):




Unrestrained conduct. A special privilege, not a right common to all. The privilege conferred by a public body on a person for the doing of something which otherwise he would not have the right to do [33 Am J1st § 2]. Permission to exercise a right or privilege which has been subjected to regulation [Madden v. Queens Jockey Club, 296 NY 249, 72 NE2d 697, 1 ALR2d 1160]. A requirement imposed by way of regulation of an occupation or business such as the business of selling intoxicating liquors [30 Am J Rev ed Intox L § 116].

A transfer by the owner of a patent right of an interest therein less than that passing by an assignment, being the granting to the licensee of the right to make, use or vend the patented article [40 AM J1st Pat § 146]. Permission to make use of a copyrighted work exclusive of others or to use the work in a particular manner or for particular purposes [Balck v. Henry G. Allen Co. (CC NY) 42 F 618].

See certificate; implied license; irrevocable license; leave and license; parol license.





  1. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license [Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85].
  2. A license is expressed or implied. An express license is one which in direct terms authorizes the performance of a certain act; as a license to keep a tavern given by public authority.
  3. An implied license is one which though not expressly given, may be presumed from the acts of the party having a right to give it. The following are examples of such licenses:
    1. When a man knocks at another’s door, and it is opened, the act of opening the door licenses the former to enter the house for any lawful purpose [See Hob. 62]
    2. A servant is, in consequence of his employment, licensed to admit to the house, those who come on his master’s business, but only such persons [Selw. N. P. 999; Cro. Eliz. 246]. It may, however, be inferred from circumstances that the servant has authority to invite whom he pleases to the house, for lawful purposes [See 2 Greenl. Ev. 427; Entry].
  4. A license is either a bare authority, without interest, or it is coupled with an interest. A bare license must be executed by the party to whom it is given in person, and cannot be made over or assigned to him by another; and, being without consideration, may be revoked at pleasure, as long as it remains executory [39 Hen. VI M. 12, page 7]; but when carried into effect, either partially or altogether, it can only be rescinded, if in its nature it will admit of revocation, by placing the other side in the same situation in which he stood before he entered on its execution [8 East, R. 308; Palm. 71; S.C. Poph. 151; S.C. 2 Roll. Rep. 143, 152].
  5. When the license is coupled with an interest the authority conferred is not properly a mere permission, but amounts to a grant, which cannot be revoked, and it may then be assigned to a third person [5 Hen. V., M. 1, page 1; 2 Mod. 317; 7 Bing. 693; 8 East, 309; 5 B. & C. 221; 7 D. & R. 783; Crabb on R. P. 521 to 525; 14 S. & R. 267; 4 S. & R. 241; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 522]. When the license is coupled with an interest, the formalities essential to confer such interest should be observed [Say R. 3; 6 East, R. 602; 8 East, R. 310, note. See 14 S. & R. 267; 4 S. & R. 241; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 522; 11 Ad. & El. 34, 39; S. C. 39 Eng, C. L. R. 19].

International law

  1. An authority given by one of two belligerent parties, to the citizens or subjects of the other, to carry on a specified trade.
  2. The effects of the license are to suspend or relax the rules of war to the extent of the authority given. It is the assumption of a state of peace to the extent of the license. In the country which grants them, licenses to carry on a pacific commerce are strici juris, as being exceptions to the general rule; though they are not to be construed with pedantic accuracy, nor will every small deviation be held to vitiate the fair effect of them [4 Rob. Rep. 8; Chitty, Law of Nat. 1 to 5, and 260; 1 Kent, Com. 164, 85].


The name of the plea of justification to an action of trespass. A license must be specially pleaded, and cannot, like liberum tenementum, be given in evidence under the general issue [2 T.R. 166, 108].



In the law of contracts, a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort [State v. Hipp, 38 Ohio St. 226; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 20 Am. Rep. 654; Hubman v. State, 61 Ark. 482, 33 S. W. 843; Chicago v. Collins, 175 Ill. 445, 51 N. E. 907, 49 L. R. A. 408, 67 L. R. A. 224]. Also the written evidence of such permission.

In real property law, an authority to do a particular act or series of acts upon another’s land without possessing any estate therein [Clifford v. O’Neill, 12 App. Div. 17, 42 N. Y. Supp. 607; Davis v. Townsend, 10 Barb. (N.Y. 343; Morrill v. Mackman, 24 Mich. 282, 9 Am. Rep. 124; Wynn v. Garland, 19 Ark. 23, 68 Am. Dec. 190; Cheever v. Pearson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 266]. Also the written evidence of authority so accorded.

  • It is distinguished from an “easement,” which implies an interest in the land to be affected, and a “lease,” or right to take the profits of land. It may be, however, and often, is, coupled with a grant of some interest in the land itself, or right to take the profits [1 Washb. Real. Prop. *398].

In pleading, a plea of justification to an action of trespass that the defendant was authorized by the owner of the freehold to commit the trespass complained of.

In the law of patents, a written authority granted by the owner of a patent to another person empowering the latter to make or use the patented article for a limited period or in a limited territory.

In international law, permission granted by a belligerent state to its own subjects, or to the subjects of the enemy, to carry on a trade interdicted by war [Wheat. Int. Law, 447].

  • High license: a system for the regulation and restriction of the traffic in intoxicating liquors, of which the distinguishing feature is the grant of licenses only to carefully selected persons and the charging of a license fee so great in amount as automatically to limit the number of retailers.
  • Letter of license: in English law, a written instrument in the nature of an agreement, signed by all the creditors of a failing or embarrassed debtor in trade, granting him an extension of time for the payment of the debts, allowing him in the mean time to carry on the business in the hope of recuperation, and protecting him from arrest, suit, or other interference pending the agreement. This form is not usual in America; but something similar to it is found in the “composition” or “extension agreement,” by which all the creditors agree to fund their claims in the form of promissory notes, concurrent as to date and maturity, sometimes payable serially and sometimes extending over a term of years. Provision is often made for the supervision or partial control of the business, in the mean time, by a trustee or a committee of the creditors, in which case the agreement is sometimes called a “deed of inspectorship,” though this term is more commonly used in England than in the United States.
  • License cases: the name given to the group of cases including Peirce v. New Hampshire, 5 How. 504, 12 L. Ed. 256, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1847, to the effect that state laws requiring a license or the payment of a tax for the privilege of selling intoxicating liquors were not in conflict with the constitutional provision giving to congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, even as applied to liquors imported from another state and remaining in the original and unbroken packages. This decision was overruled in Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. 681, 34 L. Ed. 128, which in turn was counteracted by the act of Congress of August 8, 1890, commonly called the “Wilson law.”
  • License fee or tax: the price paid to governmental or municipal authority for a license to engage in and pursue a particular calling or occupation [See Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 50 Ga. 537; Levi. V. Louisville, 97 Ky. 394, 30 S. W. 973, 28 L. R. A. 480].
  • License in amortization: a license authorizing a conveyance of property which, without it, would be invalid under the statutes of mortmain.
  • Marriage license: a written license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry, usually addressed to the minister or magistrate who is to perform the ceremony, or, in general terms, to any one authorized to solemnize marriages.
  • Registrar’s license: in English law, a license issued by an officer of that name authorizing the solemnization of a marriage, without the use of the religious ceremony ordained by the Church of England.
  • Rod license: in Canadian law, a license, granted on payment of a tax or fee, permitting the licensee to angle for fish (particularly salmon) which are otherwise protected or preserved.
  • Special license: in English law, one granted by the archbishop of Canterbury to authorize a marriage at any time or place whatever [2 Steph. Comm. 247, 255]




LI’CENSE, n. [L. licentia; from liceo, to be permitted].

  1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license.
  • A man is not permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he has obtained a license.
  1. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum.
  • License they mean, when they cry liberty.


LI’CENSE, v.t.

  1. To permit by grant of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission; as, to license a man to keep an inn.
  2. To authorize to act in a particular character; as, to license a physician or a lawyer.
  3. To dismiss [not in use].

Robert Beecher’s Legal Defense Fund

Supporters of Robert Beecher have set up a legal defense fund, which has collected $2,160 thus far. Obviously, if you have read my article on why I think legal defense funds are a terrible idea, you’d know I’m not a big fan of financially supporting ABA licensed bar attorneys. In any case, here’s another meme based off the same statement as the previous Beecher meme:


Permit “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “permit” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):




Verb: To give permission; to license. To grant leave or liberty; to allow to be done by giving consent or by not prohibiting [Wilson v. State, 19 Ind App 389, 46 NE 1050]. To tolerate [Cowley v. People, 83 NW 464].

Noun: A permission granted in writing, such as a building permit. A license.



A license or warrant to do something not forbidden by law; as, to land goods imported into the United States, after the duties have been paid or secured to be paid [Act. of Cong. of 2d March, 1799, s. 49, cl. 2. See form of such permit, Gord. Dig. Appendix. No. II. 46].



A license or instrument granted by the officers of excise, (or customs,) certifying that the duties on certain goods have been paid, or secured, and permitting their removal from some specified place to another [Wharton].

A written license or warrant, issued by a person in authority, empowering the grantee to do some act not forbidden by law, but not allowable without such authority.



PERMIT, v.t. [L. permitto; per and mitto, to send].

  1. To allow; to grant leave or liberty to by express consent.
  • He asked my leave and I permitted him.
  1. To allow by silent consent or by not prohibiting; to suffer without giving express authority. The laws permit us to do what is not expressly or impliedly forbid.
  • What God neither commands nor forbids, he permits with approbation to be done or left undone.
  1. To afford ability or means.
  • Old age does not permit us to retain the vigor of youth.
  • The man’s indigence does not permit him to indulge in luxuries.
  1. To leave; to give or resign
  • Let us not aggravate our sorrows, but to the gods permit the event of things.

o   [The latter sense is obsolete or obsolescent]



  1. A written license or permission from the custom house officer or other proper authority, to export or transport goods or to land goods or persons.
  2. Warrant; leave; permission.

Origins – The Last Bastille Podcast #72

This two part episode is available as free downloadable podcasts, originally broadcasted on May 28th of 2014.



Episode Description

I have been asked, time and again, about my background, as well as how and why I got involved in the alternative media. Having answered the same types of questions over and over again has gotten quite tiresome for me, so I figured it would be best to just compile the most common types of questions I’ve received over the years and answer them, one right after another, in the form of a 2-part podcast that ultimately took 4 hours to answer.

As a side note, I would also like to mention that technical difficulties were experienced during the making of this podcast. Although the audio has been heavily edited to weed out the worst distortions, some have remained because otherwise the context of what was being spoken would have been lost. In case you were curious, a freeware Windows OS recorder for Skype was used, which might have been responsible for the technical difficulties, but to confirm this would require further testing.