Recent comments

  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 days 14 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    It's my personal belief that, in order to assimilate "liberty", one must first recognize two basic and fundamental mindsets: 1) collectivism, and 2) individualism. As I see it, there is no middle ground. And, I'm convinced you and I will always remain uncomfortable within when and if we try to switch between one and the other. As you have pointed out above, the prevailing mindset is #1: collectivism. Collectivism is everywhere -- up and down your street in your neighborhood, among the folks standing in line at the cash register at Wal Mart, inculcated into the minds of each and every individual attending or watching a spectator-sporting event such as "Super Bowl" -- probably the predominant mentality even among members of your own family. I see collectivism as a mental illness (although I'm a proponent of the writings of the late Thomas Szasz). I'm skeptical of much of what is presented on "Prison Planet" generally, but there is a YouTube video of G. Edward Griffin -- "The Collectivist Conspiracy" -- that answers much of the questions concerning those two philosophies. I recommend watching (or listening to) at least the first 20 or so minutes, which provides a good outline. Sam
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 2 days 16 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    Wow, deep. How do you stay at peace within yourself when you know (assumption on my part) that more than a few people in this country are asking for "official" agents to affect your life in increasingly more intrusive ways? I'm new to this and blundering around, it appears that there are stages to realizing what liberty really means. I'm in that stage where unfruitful proselytizing is leaving me jaded. People more seasoned to this appear to have a peace within themselves and tolerate modern liberalism and neoconservatism in people who are loud, popular, and numerous. Perhaps I'm just impatient, while I'm grateful for Mises, Locke, Bastiat et al...how do you stay at peace when you know that, like them, full freedom in your lifetime is unlikely?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 days 17 hours ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Got to like Hasnas. Very thoughtful man. (Of course that is my opinion)
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 days 17 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    Sam, You can always be counted on for being perceptive and penetrating.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 days 17 hours ago Web link KenK
    Wow! Double Wow! It is intriguing that an evolutionist, (who could not make it as an evolutionist, but rather generate notice via being atheistic and attach the Christian belief), could garner such sour remarks regarding Christianity. To attack Christians or the Christian belief on STR does not seem to ring true to the site philosophy. These are not the tones of freedom and liberty. Just wow! Incomprehensible.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 days 17 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    What is scary (to me) about John Whitehead is not that he is a bad writer (as mainstream writers go who attempt to lean into libertarianism). He's a good writer, except for his incessant use of "we", the most dangerous word in the language. I'm always wary of anybody who tries to include me into their foray. What bothers me is the play he gets among "libertarian" press. I think Bell may have dropped him as a regular contributor now that Anthony Wile is back at the helm, but many give him front page. I don't know about you or Dr Whitehead, but if my freedoms (he erroneously and rather pompously writes "our" freedoms) are threatened by U S presidential elections, then I'd better make it a point to reexamine freedom and liberty. Sam
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 days 20 hours ago Web link KenK
    Christ did not come to make bad men good, He came to give dead men life. If you are born once you die twice.(body and soul) If you are born twice you die once.(body) Christ was the most anti-religious man to walk the earth. Investigate that statement to grasp the meaning. Hint- Religion is mans attempt to reconcile himself to a perfect God. Another interesting theme that threads through the Scriptures is the chosen peoples rejections of God and the long suffering merciful Patience of God.(golden calf,ceasar,saul,gnostisism,Christ. &c) In the above article. ChristianDOM (as opposed to christians)would be better compared to atheisms bankrupt (un)-reasonings. http://www.reasons.org/articles/more-deaths-in-the-name-of-god-or-no-gods ''Atheists often sidestep or minimize the incredible amount of evil perpetrated by atheistic totalitarian regimes in the last century. Contrary to Dawkins, the multiple tens of millions (some estimates are as high as 100 million) of people systematically murdered by Soviet and Chinese Communist forces in the twentieth century were killed not merely by a few private leaders who happened to be atheists. No. These mass murders were carried out by a Marxist ideology that held atheism as one of its central components. Communism (or Dialectical Materialism) is a naturalistic and atheistic ideology by its very nature. Atheists may claim that these dictators were not representing true atheism, but without God objective human dignity, value, and purpose seem morally arbitrary and unjustified. So couldn’t Stalin and Mao reasonably argue that their regime’s murderous acts were consistent with their materialistic, atheistic philosophy?'' http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/straight-thinking/by-the-numbers-more-de... ''“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Several thinkers have argued that the worldview of naturalism (nature as the sole reality) involves a fundamental state of epistemological incoherence or is self-defeating in nature.2 Additionally, consistent with Darwin’s original uneasiness, a growing contingent of theists thinks it is irrational to believe in evolutionary naturalism in particular. Why? Because it fails to provide a viable pathway to ensure that humans develop reliable, true beliefs about reality.3 And the deliverances of science depend upon humans having reliable and true beliefs about the natural world. Three Strikes Against Evolutionary Naturalism? The idea that atheistic, evolutionary naturalism can reliably account for man’s rational faculties and explain how human beings can discover truth faces three potential defeaters.4 Naturalism Postulates a Nonrational Source for Man’s Rationality. If a person accepts the evolutionary naturalistic worldview then he must also accept that the ultimate source of people’s reasoning faculties was not itself rational (endowed with reason), personal (self-aware, intelligent), or teleological (purposive) in nature. Rather, the source was a nonrational, impersonal, purposeless process consisting of a combination of genetic mutations, variation, and environmental factors (natural selection). Naturalism therefore postulates that a combination of random chance and blind impersonal natural processes (physical and chemical in nature) produced humanity’s rational faculties. However, presuming that a nonrational, chance origin explains human intelligence raises legitimate questions about whether human reason can be trusted. According to the presumptions of science, an effect requires an adequate and sufficient cause, and indeed that effect cannot be greater than the cause. But in the case of evolution, the effect of human intelligence is magnitudes (or, exponentially) greater than its supposed cause. The naturalist appears to have adopted a potentially self-defeating posture: He is assuming a trustworthy reasoning process only to conclude that his reasoning is ultimately untrustworthy.'' http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-triune-god-is-love http://www.reasons.org/articles/astronomical-evidences-for-the-god-of-th...
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 days 20 hours ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Never would I disagree that central political "authority" is made up of religious/political Trojan Horses. And that wars, especially "Middle-Eastern wars", have pervaded history. Most who write about "Jews" and/or "Abrahamic religions" have no clue, but they express underlying anger towards the science of rulership. That is merely one of the "sciences" that deals with social engineering, and dates back to the beginning of recorded history. For example, when one writes or talks about "Jews" or "Jewish" s/he should be referring to individuals born into a relatively small tribe of a large family in history. The tribe was Judah; the family, Israel. Yet Lumpenproletariats generally lump the entire group into the smattering, as do writers for mainstream media. They can detect the religious/state incestuousness, and they can see particular religious groups as culprits in the villainy of lobbying for state favors. But how that parleys into the evils of political authority is elusive. Few ever get the chance see the forest. The trees are constantly in the way. Therefore, the phenomenon we call "anarchy" never really gets a chance to bud. I'm reminded of the way John Hasnas phrased it: "...this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state. For if people were ever to seriously question whether government is really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse…” Now before you judge that I'm saying I have this special gift of viewing the forest, please understand: I don't. I am a sovereign state. The forest really doesn't concern me. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 days 21 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    From the article (conclusion): "...The bankrupt political establishment has given us Trump as surely as Victor Frankenstein gave his community the monster. I'm all for revolting against the establishment, but we will regret making the authoritarian and boorish Trump the standard bearer of that revolt..." I'm a sovereign state. Nobody has "given me" Trump or anybody else. When they try, I refuse and reject. For my money they can select and/or elect Jack the Ripper to be grand wizard of their klan. I'll have no reason to regret who they choose. It will have no effect upon my survival tactics, or those of my family. My Standard Bearer maintains the rotation of the earth on its axis. I'm sticking with The Incumbent. Sam
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 1 week 1 day ago Web link Westernerd
    Excellent article
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 1 week 1 day ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Excellent article, Robert. Too many people are afraid to point out the obvious about Israel's leaders' actions; politicians in the US will certainly never question them, much less the corporate media whores.
  • Amerikagulag's picture
    Amerikagulag 1 week 1 day ago Web link Westernerd
    ISIS: ISRAELI SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. Joined at the hip with the US military. All this bruhaha in the middle east has a darker underlying purpose - that of creating the "Greater Israel". Apparently 'god' told these loonies that all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates was theirs. So they're foreclosing on the mortgage with the help of the US and its military. http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-mid... The sad part is that supposedly civilized people believe this is actually a valid reason for genocide. I suppose if Syria would just give in to a Rothschild central bank, things might be different. Perhaps not.
  • Amerikagulag's picture
    Amerikagulag 1 week 1 day ago Web link KenK
    I gave up the bible for lent, long ago and haven't gone back. Its contents speak of a tribal deity which is no more god than a spoiled, perverted child bent on revenge - and its 'chosen ones' now demonstrate that beyond cavil.
  • Amerikagulag's picture
    Amerikagulag 1 week 1 day ago Web link Westernerd
    Well considering Bush's 'patriot act, military commissions act, et al, I'd say it hasn't survived the last 2 election-type-things. I don't call them elections any more. The table it tilted, the game is rigged. The choice for the 'oval office' is already made as we discuss this. The Rothschilds dictate who site in that seat. It's just a matter of the counting. And 'they' will take care of that.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 1 week 2 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    It is even worse than this. Not only are your child's allergies a business model, so are his neurological problems (seizures, ADHD, learning disabilities, sensory processing disorders, and autism), his gastrointestinal problems, and his cancer. Parents and health professionals are increasingly catching on to this scam and opting out. Naturally, the fascists do not like it when savvy people threaten their revenue streams, so they are increasingly pushing for vaccine mandates, and not just for kids.
  • emartin's picture
    emartin 2 weeks 2 days ago
    Jackass Abiding
    Page Paul Hein
    If someone was a coward and wanted to hide it. Wouldn't they pretend that being law-abiding was of the utmost importance?
  • Higgs Boson's picture
    Higgs Boson 2 weeks 2 days ago
    Jackass Abiding
    Page Paul Hein
    You are one of my favorite writers. Have followed you for many years. I registered on Strike-The-Root just so I could tell you that.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 weeks 2 days ago
    Jackass Abiding
    Page Paul Hein
    My own ruminations on the law: http://strike-the-root.com/law These days I look at the law as two things 1) a jobs program for a lot of government functionaries, and 2) a form of propaganda to keep the peons quiet and submissive. The former is self-explanatory; by the latter I mean that is creates a fantasy world in which justice is dispensed equally to all, but the reality of course is that the law applies only to the peons. The main distinguishing characteristic of the ruling class and its minions is that the law in reality does not apply to them (although now and then a minion might be thrown under the bus if he has not adequately done his job for the rulers). It's true that despite the above, which is lately becoming more and more visible, there are still a lot of peons who make a fetish of obeying the law (particularly the conservatives - or that recent term for them, the "cuckservatives"). All I can figure out about them is that they have a dearth of self respect.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 weeks 3 days ago Web link KenK
    Define "God".
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 2 weeks 3 days ago Web link KenK
    ...And the Jews cried out ,we have no King but Ceasar. > http://www.hisholychurch.org/sermon/idiots.php
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 2 weeks 3 days ago Web link KenK
    Professional statist Dick Dawkins is a hypocrite. The statist religion has murdered,imprisoned and terrorized more than any (non)-entity you may name. He sets up a straw man to knock down. Hey,it's the lesser of two-evils, Right? A quibble about definitions. A Christian would be someone who follows Christ. Christiandom, is the devils attempt at subverting those followers, by a joinder with the State. Remember who controlls the kingdoms of this world? Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Do you remember all of the Christians who were put to death in the Roman Empire? They were not put to death because they were Christians. In Rome, you could believe anything you wanted to believe, just as long as you swore by the genius of Caesar; just as long as you said, 'Caesar is Lord.' Christians were put to death not because they were Christians, but because they were called traitors and treasonous individuals, because they would not swear allegiance to the State. All down through history, Christians have been put to death because they said, 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' For the Christian, it is idolatry, which above all else, constitutes treason to the social order. We know, and we believe, that God is True and His Word is True. Disobedience and unfaithfulness to God is idolatry; it is treason. "Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and also for that Christ was crucified." The martyrs of the christians,a derogatory term at the time,grew true christianity in the face of terrible persecutions. This distressed Constantine, something had to be done or else the TRUTHS of this christianity cult MAY TAKE OVER THE WORLD PEACEABLY. If you cannot destroy from the outside,you infiltrate. Modern day imperial government knows the lesson well. The Scriptures have a few themes that seem to run from beginning to end. One happens to be The rejection of God for the creation imperial government. Could even the very elect be deceived? I know precious few(the remnant) who call themselves Christians, who are not dyed in the wool Statists. God made man. Man hates God. Man made Government. The creation(government) now rules over the creator.(man) No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. God commands to have no one before him, for he is jealous. Man says ''I will have your first-fruits. You are my slave.'' God commands thou shall not kill. Man says ''Sally forth and spread my statist religion with the edge of a sword.'' It is always interesting to go back, and look again at the Ten Commandments and see which things God says actually are transcendant. What do we find there? As far as obligation and responsibility goes, the story looks like this. First Commandment: Our primary obligation is to God; all other obligations are secondary. Second Commandment: We must worship God and avoid the worship of all idols and secondary commitments. Third Commandment: God says that we may not empty the worship of God of meaning. Fourth Commandment: God has made a day of worship for us to spend with Him; we must keep it. We must not cause others to work on this day. Fifth commandment: God says that we have an obligation to our immediate family. Sixth Commandment: God says that we have a commitment to our fellow men not to kill them. Seventh Commandment: God says that we have a definite commitment to our spouse and to other married couples. Eighth Commandment: God says that we have an obligation to respect the property rights of others. Ninth Commandment: God says that we have an obligation to deal with other people truthfully and to guard their reputations. Tenth Commandment: God says that we are not to desire the spouses or possessions of others. And so, a look at the Ten Commandments reveals three circles of commitments: (1) To God first. (2) To our spouse and other couples, and to our immediate familiy. (3) To our fellow man, in not killing him, telling untruths about him, stealing from him, or causing him to work on Sabbath. Commitment to national units is nowhere to be found: not in the Ten Commandments; not in the teachings of Jesus; not in the teachings of Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament. What are Christ's words that no one in ChristianDUMB can find these day? Christ Jesus has said; “And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.21 Luke 22:25 ..."But ye shall not be so." Jesus said in Matthew 20:25 “But Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you Will you accept Christ Jesus's words? Or will you compromise the incorrect interpretation of romans13,that keeps one floundering in the morass of cognitive dissonance. Romans 13 was Hitlers favorite verse. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:8-10 (no tax,no tribute,no voting,as that is a trespass and a violence to your neighbors.) Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. and Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (No room for a Government of rulers here.) The next verses are prophetic and point to the rulers(kings) and their creatures(corporations,merchants) and how we should ''come out of the mystery babylon.'') Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. + 2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, 2Cr 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 weeks 4 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Feds trying to whip up an incident to justify the impending Waco conclusion. WTF is this "town armory" thing? Dont know of any towns in America that stockpile arms & ammo.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 weeks 5 days ago Web link KenK
    Good for Dawkins. Except for the late Mr. Hitchens none of other so-called iconoclast evangelical atheists don't say sh*t about religious denominations except for Christians. Judaism, Hindus, Muslims nadda. Very little honesty in public debate any more. Maybe it's fear of ostracism or in the case of Muslims injury or death.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 3 weeks 20 hours ago Web link KenK
    I agree with that, but don't you think that many U.S. Christian churches are CURRENTLY just as death-crazed, except that they are expressing such a mentality through honoring and supporting the members of the armed forces, an avenue which is considered more civilized than shouting in street demonstrations and supporting acts of non-state terrorism?
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 3 weeks 20 hours ago Web link KenK
    Islam, being the younger religion, is still going through the growth stages. . . Christianity was just as violent, just as death-crazed and misogynist as modern Islam - it was just 500 or so years ago instead of RIGHT F'N NOW! How do people think that the Dark Ages came to be? Rainbows and unicorn farts?
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 3 weeks 22 hours ago Web link KenK
    I have nothing positive to say about the way that Islam is practiced in many parts of the world. But I would note that it does not seem to promote abominable behavior everywhere. In the U.S., it seems to be practiced quite peacefully. And while we may not associate Christianity with suicide-bombers and overt misogyny, there are plenty of Christian warmongers who have done much more to promote death and destruction worldwide (via the vehicle of the State) than freelance Muslims will ever likely accomplish. But again, I would not generalize to Christianity in total here, since there are also peace-loving Christians and sects of Christianity. It is too bad that Dawkins (and so many other Statists, who think that they are Atheists) can't grasp this reality.  
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 weeks 1 day ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Gratuitous advice. Learn to hunt & fish. Gutting & scaling fish is easy, as are birds. Because you never know when the Dear Leader is gonna classify all the little meat stores and cattle operation kulaks, and shut em down.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 weeks 1 day ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I get most of mine from longtime family owned meat store that butcher & prepares it themselves. I trust them to do it right & have never had a problem in over a decade of patronage. So it can be done. Whole Foods sells meat tho it's pricey.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 3 weeks 1 day ago Web link Westernerd
    A lot of good, if depressing points, but at the end, this author shied away from the obvious conclusion as nearly all others seem to do. After illustrating the pitfalls of government very clearly, instead of taking the obvious leap, Anarchy, he defaults to the tired old trope of minarchy. That's what the founders set up in the first place, and the Constitution was their best effort to boilerplate it shut. That lasted all of about "four-score and seven years", so what makes ~anyone~ think another cleverly worded document can do better? Remember, Anarchy is an absence of ~rulers~, not an absence of rules or order.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 weeks 3 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Is this Strike-The-Root, or has it changed to some kind of socialist daily?  Real libertarians don't support government-mandated labeling.
  • nost8r's picture
    nost8r 3 weeks 3 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    You can still know where your meat comes from. It's just more work. You have to seek out local, open farmers. Talk to them, volunteer at their farm, get to know them. They are our future.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 weeks 5 days ago Web link KenK
    In other words Obama's EO changes nothing legally. Before his reign ends tho there will probably be some highly publicized selevtive raids, arrests, & prosecutions for unlicensed sales in order to cause FUD
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 18 hours ago Page Hogeye Bill
    Intended to address Terry Hulsey's comments regarding "intellectuals". So I'll make a second comment: Gary North had an excellent essay regarding the intellectual mentality some years ago. You can read it here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/03/gary-north/those-lying-textbooks/ Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 18 hours ago Page Hogeye Bill
    Interesting interchange. My take is that once "we" embark upon the daunting task of "libertarian" (or "anarchist" for that matter) "theory", we lose the ability to divest from collectivism. Freedom sidesteps theory. Terry Hulsey: "...ownership...of free land would be determined by whom?..." Exactly. We had a participant a couple years ago on this forum that got himself thrown off (I think -- anyhow he abruptly disappeared). "White Indian". I liked White Indian because he was crazy (like me). And he "thunk". Injun was the nemesis of the "theorists". He and I both fit what one judge once diagnosed me: pathological nonconformist. Injun harped on the idea of land ownership from the standpoint of the original settlers in this land-of-the-free. Hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of years ago. They were tribes with chiefs and with medicine men who were revered (just like politics -- the state -- is rather worshiped today by the white man). They formed no central political authorities charged with "determining" who owned the land upon which they hunted and they gathered herbs. They were mostly migratory. The white man labeled the various tribes and groups of tribes "nations". That was the white man's only mentality. He could not divest from collectivism either. But the natives of this part of the world did not fit the general category of "nation". They had no formally defined "borders". Where men and their families set up their tepees were their homes. Until it was time to move to where the wildlife had migrated for the season. And fight -- they fought like a bunch of libertarians, as I understand history. They fought among themselves over wells and buffalo herds and hunting grounds, but not "borders". That was the white man's purveyance -- forming political alliances and defining borders. And fighting wars. And taxing "citizens" (producers). And determining who could live where and travel where, etc etc etc. Oh White Indian, where art thou? Sam
  • Terry Hulsey's picture
    Terry Hulsey 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Hogeye Bill
    Mr. Hogeye, Your article for unrestricted free immigration rests on two propositions: * That radicals for property would limit free speech; * That radicals for property living in a world where states exist wrongly assume that the state can be proxy landowners for taxpayers, or anyone.   On the first head, I do state that radicalizing property rights to abolish public property would revolutionize the meaning of free speech. First of all, as no one realizes, the intellectual would cease to exist. The intellectual is an institutional construct of a world of partially public, partially private ownership. His sole function is to be the advocate of how public property is to be disposed. In the absence of public property, he would be replaced by the (privately-funded) expert or by the scholar, whether working as an amateur or on behalf of some school. A discussion such as the one we are having would only have the status of a pleasant conversation among friends, with no bearing on the determination of public policy.   Regarding the second head, it's possible that a lost bundle of cash that was originally stolen may not have a titled owner. This is not the case for most, and possibly all, federal land, since the original owners are a matter of historical record.   But let's assume for argument that there exists at least some land without clear title. Both sides want to avoid the irresolution of an unending, and possibly violent, search of history for the "rightful owners," which would do nothing but spawn a blab fest over the meaning of "rightful."   Let's grant the wish of those who want to return this land to homestead status.   Ownership after this rush of "Sooners" into this bonanza of free land would be determined by whom? Immediately rejected by both sides is the possibility that the state can claim property in its own right. That leaves only two possibilities: Either determination is by the state as proxy for yet-to-be-settled owners, or there is no determination at all. In the latter case, the contending homesteaders would be left to "settle it among themselves" as to who got there first. It is puerile fantasy, in the current context, to assume that they would have their insurance agents or private security firms sit down to tea and crumpets for a polite resolution of the matter. (This truth does not denigrate the natural evolution of such agents in a longer context.)   Therefore the only reasonable possibility is that a proxy state, without right to property of its own, would determine ownership on behalf of others to whom it would give title, peacefully fixed and assured. This same argument for a proxy state applies to all current policy matters, until the state can be replaced by anarchic institutions.  
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 weeks 3 days ago Page Hogeye Bill
    'land illegitimately held by government belongs to a collective of “taxpayers” who are the “true owners.” ' I too think Hoppe is wrong here, but (perhaps) not quite in the way you do. There is nothing wrong with the notion of "collectively-owned" land. In a free society, a town may own the town square collectively, with each of the townspeople (if they want) a shareholder. One can think of various ways for this to take place without any coercion. Such a town square could have any kind of restriction on its use that the true owners pleased; everything from "No immigrants allowed" to "Immigrants welcome; set your tents up on the north side." Where Hoppe goes wrong is imagining that ALL government land is owned by all the taxpayers. There is no way for this to take place, for the land to devolve to the control of the actual owners, in a free society without coercion. To homestead the land, even if you plan to later cede or sell it to a collective, you have to be there and work it. Impossible with all government land; there's too much of it. He also goes wrong in depending on "representative" government to administer that land, as the notion of representation in government is completely bogus, a logical impossibility.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 5 weeks 3 days ago Page Hogeye Bill
    Excellent retort to the "Hans Hermann Hoppe" school of libertarian immigration theory.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 5 weeks 4 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Very well-done and professionally made short videos of politicians squirming to pretend there is no contradiction in their claim to authority.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 6 weeks 22 hours ago
    Say It Isn't So!
    Page Paul Hein
    Ah, the compassion of the California commies: Mandate the disclosure of the coercion of children used in producing chocolate. Next, mandate the coercion of parents into injected their children with poisons that could disable or kill them (vaccines) in order to attend any type of school or day care (SB 277). Hypocrisy, thy name is California.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 6 weeks 1 day ago
    Say It Isn't So!
    Page Paul Hein
    Screw California. Those guys have voted for this kind of nonsense for decades and they can just live with it now, assuming that they even notice.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 6 weeks 1 day ago
    Say It Isn't So!
    Page Paul Hein
    Without legal tender laws, the Federal Reserve Note would have to be redeemed with either United States Notes or coin stamped out by the U.S. Mint.  However, as the legal tender laws allow tender of Fed notes to discharge debt obligations, and a Fed note is itself a debt instrument, the Fed can discharge the debt represented by the note by giving back more Fed notes.   It is a bit crass to return to the bearer *the same note* that they just handed over for redemption, though.  Technically, ownership of the note is not negotiated until *after* the obligation is satisfied.   And equally technically, a dollar (or peso de ocho [reales]) is "coin silver" (0.900 Ag, 0.100 Cu), with total mass from 400 to 500 grains.  The U.S. standard is 416 avordupois grains (26.96 g), which gave the U.S. silver dollar slightly higher seignorage than spanish silver dollars, which were the global trade standard at the time.  This definition was valid for centuries.  Now, you need 11.13 Fed "dollars" to get one actual dollar.   False advertising?  Hell yes.
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 6 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Thanks Glen! Yeah, I can understand why someone worried about false flags and mass surveillance would be happy that they both had some cinematic exposure. I'm lucky to live in a time when many activists and people know about this stuff.  Something I didn't really point out in my review was that most of these crimes can't really be done by "rogue outfits" -- "SPECTRE" or ISIS or even Anoymous for that matter. Most of the time, the ones doing the monitoring and the terrorism aren't sitting in a basement or a garage or wherever; it's the State and big corporations like Facebook and AT&T who are partnering up, as you pointed out. That's not to say that terrorism isn't being committed by people unconnected to the fascist State. But these are important distinctions to keep in mind. Cheers. 
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 6 weeks 6 days ago
    I Don't Get It
    Page Paul Hein
    "I can’t recall hearing anyone suggest that they simply be denied those benefits, although I will surely admit that someone might have suggested it." We tried in California back in 1994, with Prop. 187 - some silk-robed cretins decided that it wasn't legal for Californians to refuse to allow some foreigner to come and mug them under color of law. Which has caused an approximately $10Bn budget shortfall in Cali: $23Bn paid out to illegals in "benefits" minus the approx. $13Bn in taxes generated by the few Criminal Trespassers who "work" for a living.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 6 weeks 6 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Nicely done! You make good artistic and political points.  I will say that personally, I appreciated seeing corporatist-engineered false flags put front-and-center in a popular film with a huge audience. The Bond franchise has always made money glorifying the State's violent "intelligence" apparatus; in SPECTRE, the roots of this violence are at least put in the spotlight. False flags aren't new, no, and neither is the fascist government/corporate "partnership" that long ago replaced the American republic (as of the adoption of the Constitution, I'd say), but many people still aren't willing to accept the awful truth. Smedley Butler would approve of SPECTRE's storyline, I think.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I should mention one other group profiting from this government intervention. There appear to be several "advocacy" groups whose supposed mission is to lobby for renters (against landlords) in the legislature, but that are probably more concerned with fund-raising to support the staff of those groups. Sometimes the human race seems to be nothing more than one gigantic, complex scam... I notice Wendy McElroy linked to this article. Thanks, Wendy!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Woops, I goofed, pasting this comment on the wrong article.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    One of my fantasies. Wife wouldn't go for that, however. I might just have to get out on my own now and then. BTW flyover country is little if any better than Oregon. I lived in Wyoming for a while. Rather than being free, it was unfree in a way somewhat different than in Oregon.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 8 weeks 3 days ago Web link KenK
    Because they are smarter than the remainder of the unwashed masses, we are stupider to I guess because we can't act, can't dance, can't sing, can't lie, or maybe it is the fact that they recognize most of us can see through their smoky mirrors. To conclude, stupid is as stupid does! That was the stupidest remark I have ever read. I noted today on "Jews for the Protection of Gun Rights" they listed by nation the highest rates of mass shooting, contrary to the House Boys remark earlier this week. The U.S.A. ranks 8th with mass shootings, and what I garnered from the article these other countries out ranked the U.S.A. in numbers killed.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 9 weeks 19 hours ago Web link KenK
    Why is it always the plutocrats, politicians, Hollywood types, brass-hatted cops, etc, (who all have personal entourages of security and/or unrestricted personal armed carry privileges for themselves) who lecture the rest of us that guns dont make us safer?
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 9 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, Brilliant from both sides of the argument, but mostly from the smalltime owner/ renter/ landlord POV. Get a van; live in it as you both work; sock away bucks. Move to smalltown in FlyOver Country. Problem, Reaction, Dilution.   Doug