Recent comments

  • GainesvilleCoins's picture
    GainesvilleCoins 1 day 13 hours ago
    The Elastic Standard
    Page Paul Hein
    Great points, Paul. I work in the coin / precious metals industry, so a few notes: Those $50 silver dollars are collectibles; the "bullion" versions of the U.S. Mint's American Silver Eagle coins sell for a small premium above the melt value of its silver content (1 troy oz), so a little over $20. But your point stands. The legal tender value of a Silver Eagle is a farce. Sure, they're redeemable for 1 "dollar," but who would do so when you can sell the coin for at least the spot price of silver? The mint confers legal tender status onto the coins just so it can say they are "silver coins." (If they weren't legal tender, they'd merely be "medals" instead.) You could fairly call them specie, but they aren't intended to circulate—nor should they, upon rational consideration, at least not at a rate of one fictional USD. We should certainly ask ourselves why an ounce of silver is $20; throughout the history of this country, a silver dollar coin was standardized at 0.7734 troy ounce of silver content. That standard didn't change for well over a century. The government changed the composition of U.S. coins after 1964 so that dimes, quarters, and half dollars no longer contained silver. At the time, it was becoming profitable to hoard coins for their silver value rather than using them as money. Like Sam mentions, the value of the dollar is only due to fiat (government decree)—you must accept our worthless money under penalty of law! Nothing tangible backs this absurd monetary system. It's less useful to think of the price of silver as "going up" than it is to say (as you have here) that the "dollar" is a futile measuring stick. It's lost over 95% of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve opened its doors in 1913. Federal Reserve notes are simply debt obligations masquerading as capital. Meanwhile, the relative value of the precious metals have been remarkably steady over that time.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 days 18 hours ago Web link KenK
    Ever wonder about the funding of studies such as this? Or why??? And people wonder why I, long retired "science" teacher, generally always question "science" excruciatingly??? Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 days 11 hours ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Thinking to amend my most recent response to Paul's comment on Alex's essay, I decided to post another remark. Because, looking at my earlier comment where I used the arbitrary figure 99.5% (of general population who will never read what we write here -- or other anarchist forums), I think truth would verify a much stronger -- more like 99.995% -- figure. That's during my more anarchistically unenthusiastic phases. The waning days of summer and autumn seem filled with political holidays (one coming up in just a few more days) designed to unabashedly sell socialistic murder and mayhem to the hoi polloi as being good and deserving of their celebration and their support. Hard acts to follow. Which put me to mind of an article Butler Shaffer posted several years ago: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/07/butler-shaffer/the-july-4th-lie/ And even Butler -- one of my many mentors -- seemed to cling to vestiges of statism with his tongue-in-cheek recommendations for additional holidays. Alex is right: "...The fight against socialism is not one waged against a mere difference of opinion, but, to be sure, a struggle for every aspect of human survival itself..." I believe we're going to win the struggle. I believe my 26th grandchild -- a little girl, Naomi Mae, born last Thursday -- will grow up to see the victory. I'll be fortunate to still be capable of witnessing her triumph. Gotta keep biking every day to make it happen. And, of course, continue to abstain from beans. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 days 12 hours ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Yet, when you think about it deeply, you begin to see that the entire infrastructure of state rests upon a bedrock of jealousy and envy. Which is exactly what Alex's little essay encompasses -- nicely, I should add. The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 days 13 hours ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    One wonders about people whose worldview is so infused with and dependent on such a disreputable emotion as jealousy. Are they not ashamed? Maybe there is not much shame left in this world.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 days 13 hours ago
    Yes, Or No?
    Page Paul Hein
    I don't know Paul. Sending such a thing to anyone would seem to put me in a subservient position. I'd rather not. Not that I haven't myself done or imagined doing the same thing in the past. The point though, is not to change the thinking of a member of the ruling class, but to open others' eyes. Not that even that limited aim seems to have much success, but I suppose little ideas could dig into an observer's mind and eventually bear fruit (pardon the mixed metaphor), without us being around to notice it.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 days 13 hours ago
    Slaves of the Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "After all, it's an election year, LOL" Yes, people go temporarily insane during the silly season. I suspect that is why STR et. al. go begging at times.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 days 13 hours ago
    Slaves of the Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "The way I think and express myself determines how free I can be -- or become." Exactly. It's all part of that self-enforcement.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 days 14 hours ago Web link KenK
    Duplicate. Sorry.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 days 14 hours ago Web link KenK
    Nobody asks how or why one gains "authority" to lock another up. Only whinging and whanging over the natural progression of that evil act. Sex being the sacred cow in this instance. Ask wrong questions and one needn't fear answers. Sam
  • dhowlandjr's picture
    dhowlandjr 6 days 9 hours ago
    Slaves of the Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Hey Paul! This is a good one! With your usual feistiness, but hey! Slavery is objectionable even though you can't tell so much by looking around these days. And Sam, thanks for all your comments, I read the Delmar England material you recommended and really enjoyed it! I agree about the forums, I guess currently they think libertarian ideas need to be dumbed down or something. After all, it's an election year, LOL
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 days 12 hours ago
    Slaves of the Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Additional thought (adding to my predominance of late to the "comments" section on STR). This from a "Lew Rockwell" article this morning -- most of which stray solidly into the realm of "minarchist", or "mini-state" mentality: "...by now more than half the population in most Western democracies draw half or more of their income from public administration, as government employees, recipients of social programs, and/or retirees..." Paul Gottfried, author of the article, probably leans more heavily to libertarian thinking than most who reside in academe. But never assume that Gottfried is anarchist by any sense of the imagination. Whenever I see a term like "...public administration..." in vocabulary, I recognize mini-statism (if not full-blown governmentalism). Many of these writers (including most of the articles posted at STR) do relatively decent work pointing out the fallacies and malfeasance of monopoly state. But in their whimpering and their grumbling is embedded the idea that "we" must "elect the right people" in order to make things right again. In order to "...GET OUR COUNTRY BACK!..." How many of these writers could recognize "income-from-public-administration" as robbery, pure and simple? How many understand that there is no such thing as "public-administration" -- that the phrase points to a mindless abstraction??? The way I think and express myself determines how free I can be -- or become. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 days 13 hours ago
    Slaves of the Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Anybody who knows me would be disappointed if I ever did a thing -- or refrained from a thing -- because it was a rule, or a law, or a regulation, or a policy. If it don't make sense -- to me -- I ain't a-gonna comply. "Voluntarily", that is. I might comply if confronted by jurisdiction. The only jurisdiction in existence anywhere on this pale blue dot is force of arms. I believe a man with a loaded gun. Or woman (l-rd have mercy! :-]). Especially those wearing state costumes. They're definitely the most dangerous of the armed. You've outlined the religion -- the superstition -- called "state" quite adequately: "...slave mentality in action on Internet forums. In the gun forum I frequent, there is even a sub-board dealing with the intricacies of the law, where members debate endlessly over the fine points and jump through hoops in an often futile attempt to stay on the “right side” of laws for which there is never any victim--except for themselves if they get caught violating one..." You've put your finger on the enemy, Paul. Most libertarian forums have virtually gone to seed, literally and figuratively. Unless there are some I've missed. I counted only ten comments posted here over the last two weeks. Half were mine. In past years I've seen (don't know that I've ever counted) at least 25 or 30 -- and probably more -- comments in a single day. Granted, some were needless squabbling -- particularly when "religion" entered the topic. Or "rights". And I fully agree with your conclusion: like Frederick Douglass, my goal must be to "...dispensed with (my) slave mind-set...". Unlike Douglass in his day, I'm old. I ain't got that much time left to become free. I'd better do it now. Here. Today. Where I'm "at". Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 14 hours ago
    Yes, Or No?
    Page Paul Hein
    True, the entire superstition of government and politics is obfuscation from stem to stern. It would be unthinkable for psychopaths, grouped under one of those brainless abstractions, to make statements or provide answers in direct, understandable format. The science of rulership dictates that the governed constantly be manipulated into believing and standing in awe of those doing the governing. Why do you suppose, if you wind up in one of the white man's courts, are you forced to be treated to the spectacle of it being virtually mandatory that everyone rise ("all rise!") when a "judge" swaggers in? We libertarians often smile at and refer to the little story "The-Emperor-Is-Naked". But how often is the question asked, "...why do people stand around watching an emperor parade by in the first place?..." What force, or eerie spirit, has appeared to afflict individuals since the earliest recorded history to want to follow emperors and their collectivist insanity? And to aggrandize their machinations and their endless wars? Bernie Sanders' answers to the ignorant interviewer are as natural for the lunatics of his category as corn bread in January. What else should one expect from his type -- reason??? Logic??? Insanity is the Social Norm. In order for me to achieve freedom it has been necessary to cease thinking and/or writing in terms of "Our Rulers". They might be your rulers. They are not our rulers. Sam
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 1 week 2 days ago
    Yes, Or No?
    Page Paul Hein
    I like the idea but politicians can't, generally, answer simply "yes", "no", or "no comment": https://youtu.be/tBIKP4W50-I
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 1 week 5 days ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    Great thinking, mishochu, and good luck. But why not have both?   Statists will certainly extinguish liberty whenever they can; just give them time. Consider: "non-profit" is a term that they define. When they see "too many" people taking advantage of that status, they will change its meaning or just repeal the loophole.   There is no alternative: government must go, 100%. If not, you may raise your children well, only for them to grow up into a world in which freedom is impossible.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 6 days ago Web link Westernerd
    When those feeding from a common nosebag • Make laws, • Enforce laws, • Prosecute laws, • Hire prosecutors, • License “defense” attorneys, • Pay “judges”, • Build jails, • Contract jails out to private entities, • Employ and pay wardens, • Employ and pay guards, • Employ and pay parole officers, You’re dealing with tyranny – not “…an unbiased system…” But when a large and unsavory segment of the population demand central political authority, it's what you get. Live with it. Either that or abstain from beans and become sovereign (I may post an additional comment later regarding "becoming sovereign". Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 weeks 13 hours ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I'm prejudiced, of course, since I gave up television over 50 years ago. I've also abstained from all spectator sports. Endless covert and not-so-covert propaganda, flag worship and fireworks displays (an insidious form of state hype) nauseate me. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 weeks 1 day ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    But  Melinda is correct. CNN commentators are mostly PC douchebags, even in sports, and so fuck em anyhow.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 weeks 1 day ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    The nation state model of competition is largely outmoded in modern times. Few nation states are as ethnically pure as they were in early 1900's. For example, European futbul stars today are mostly ethnic Africans and in American baseball the stars are mostly Caribes from DR, Cuba, & Venezuela. The Olympics are a fucking scam anyway. The whole thing is about crony cap media profitabilty combined with graft glalore for the local boosters and pols. 
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 weeks 2 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    If stories like this keep coming along, Strike will need to have a "New Jersey" hash tag soon. What is it about NJ pols that they feel there is no human behavior or action that is not with their purview to regulate? If you go there or to NY, CA, CT, the people themselves seem okay, but then look at the legislatures they vote in. Incomprehensible.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 weeks 5 days ago Web link Westernerd
    I'd not disagree that Rutherford Institute in general and John Whitehead in particular amount to "minarchist blather": "...There is still a lot Americans can do to topple the police state tyrants, but any revolution that has any hope of succeeding needs to be prepared to reform the system from the bottom up. And that will mean re-learning step by painful step what it actually means to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people..." His mentality defaults naturally into "rebuilding a system", or "our-beloved-democracy". What we know that he apparently hasn't discovered (yet) is that no matter where you intend to start that predator "system", it will grow and metastasize to eventually consume its host. Government "...of the people, by the people and for the people..." is the collectivist malarkey that has sustained and augmented the Gettysburg's that have plagued mankind from time immemorial. Government "...of the individual, by the individual, and for the individual..." is the philosophy I eventually assimilated after my traumatic disenchantment 50+ years ago with the trouncing of my political hero of the time, Barry Goldwater. Karl Hess led me to Harry Browne and Robert Ringer who eventually led me here. So let's not give up on the likes of John Whitehead. He appears to be mad as hell over the "system" he so avidly promotes. That, I think, might be an opening cannon to anarchy (at least it was for me). Of course I had one advantage: I had no writing, publishing or evangelistic skills, or "connections". Therefore, I had no previous "stance" or "acclamation" to defend. It gave me permission to change as change was indicated. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 weeks 6 days ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    Mishochu, I read countless articles daily such as this and this, and this; and I want to think that you and I and all anarchists and libertarians are on the cutting edge of something very, very big. That's on my "good" days. That's when I'm encouraged by the Internet Reformation. Then, a day or two later, reality sets in. Our numbers are dismal by comparison. And even among ourselves we're needy to gee and haw with the machinations of psychopaths hiding under the mantle of "state" in order to sidestep the beast. "Non-profits" are strictly state devices to assure -- or ensure -- "voluntary compliance", or conformance. Yet I strongly encourage what you're doing to encourage homeschooling and inoculate against statism. Don't get me wrong -- we individuals declaring sovereign statehood can't ignore the serfdom that has encapsulated all our neighbors, friends and families. We have to manipulate and mold our lives to keep the dangerously armed agents in state costumes off our backs. I've often used the rattlesnake analogy -- I can't or shouldn't go to the woods (in the snake-infested part of the world where I grew up) without adequate leg, hand and arm protection. Can we preach and teach our "society" into freedom in order for we ourselves to experience freedom? I strongly agree with you: for me anyway, I have to be free. Today. Here. Where I'm "at". I'm strongly into octogenarian-ism. I don't have time to wait for the world around me to achieve liberty and freedom. If it's going to be, it's up to me. Now. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 2 weeks 6 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Minarchist blather.
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 3 weeks 11 hours ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    I'm beginning not to care about proselytization. And instead turning things on their head and earn only Bitcoin (converted and stored as metal) and create a non-profit to handle property taxes (non-profits are exempt where I am). I'm thinking of having the non-profit focus on home schooling and the needs of home schooling families (which may do some little towards inoculating against statism). Forget this free future, I want it for my family now. With technology it is beginning to seem a lot easier to do what I'm calling "live sovereign in plain sight".
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 1 day ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    An interesting article by Chris Cantwell a few months back, and an interchange on "Liberty Me" forum this morning, sort of point up a few of the communication problems facing the idea that liberty and freedom, like religion, can be proselytized. "...So will you spell out how a total collapse here would necessarily produce a free society?..." I'm not a prognosticator, Jim -- merely an observer. And I'm not a believer that "recent history" is as accurate a predictor of outcomes as it once might have been, in this age of Internet Reformation. More, perhaps, later. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 weeks 1 day ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    Sam, you've put your finger on a vital point: can the State be rolled back to zero?   Yes, it's been around for about 400 generations - and on its present scale in the US for about 4 generations. We face a big job.   The first para of "A Little Good News" links to a ZGBlog showing why and how I think it can be done, even so. I know of no other way. My book Transition to Liberty details the likely progress. But what of the alternative you name: a "cataclysmic collapse of their 'system'"?   Several times in recent history, states have collapsed; often after losing a war. In every case, government either continued (eg Zambia) or was replaced (eg Germany.)   So will you spell out how a total collapse here would necessarily produce a free society?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 2 days ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    Perhaps it's because I'm in one of those not-so-good "moods" this morning. But I'm convinced that the vast, overwhelming majority of individuals have been so sucked in to the lust for central political "authority", over so lengthy of a time period (hundreds of "generations"), that nothing -- nothing -- will exorcise them other than a complete and cataclysmic collapse of their "system". That is not going to be pretty. You did your normal excellent job, Jim, of outlining the situation with this analogue. Most have seen this video (statist to the core, but entertaining and truthful -- from the mouths of babes). Nobody should ever at any time and for any reason ever talk to "police". And it is more essential than ever before that more of us see the light and abstain from beans. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 6 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "...Now think about envy, covetousness, jealousy – and its sociopolitical end-product, socialism, and whatever we can possibly do to oust it and its influences from our lives forever..." It was important that I learn early-on that there is not a lot I can do about YOUR "...envy, covetousness, jealousy..." (and the end-product of socialism). But there is something I can do about MINE. Well, in a sense, Alex, since both you and I are here on STR I can have some influence upon you and perhaps a few others, and you're certainly having an influence upon me -- and many others. But keep in mind -- probably 99.5% (more or less) of folks who engage in envy, covetousness and jealousy (and who root for socialism) are not here and will never read your article or my comments. And I don't have time to go out and attempt to recruit a sizable dent in that 99.5%. So I've got to find a way to be free. Here. Now. Today. Where I'm "at". Freedom starts between my ears. The challenge of anarchy is learning to circumnavigate and sidestep the socialistic trip-hazards. I may not eliminate them all, but I can learn to avoid allowing them to constantly trip me up. It's eerie, the number of people who appear to crave central political authority -- and ensuing socialism. And it appears that my primary defense against those throngs is to abstain from beans. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 weeks 6 days ago Web link Westernerd
    The parties both get taxpayer money for these spectacles too. 
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 6 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    Here's Simon Black's version: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/new-legislation-proposes-to-bail-in-... (Aw, shucks! After going back and reading the posted article I note GovtSlaves has printed Black's version also, so this link is redundant. As you were). Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 4 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    I'm raising Whitehead's grade up to "almost". https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/john-w-whitehead/stop-drinking-kool-... At least he's getting pissed. Never will he urge us to abstain from beans, but he does say, at the end, "...Stop playing the game. Stop supporting the system. Stop defending the insanity. Just stop..." Almost sounds like he's suggesting that I "opt out" -- but not quite. "...It takes a citizenry** willing to do more than grouse and complain. We must act—and act responsibly—keeping in mind that the duties of citizenship extend beyond the act of voting..." **He doesn't explain what he means by the brainless abstraction, "citizenry". Would that be thee? Or me???? I'll stick with our old friend, Mark Davis' take of 11+ years ago: "...Working within the system means to become a part of the system. When you go into the voting booth, the only meaningful significance that your action will have is to show that one more person supports the state..." ~Mark Davis From Be Free, by Mark Davis July 10, 2005. http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davis_m/davis1.html Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 1 day ago Web link strike
    Were I a voter I'd vote for Trump. If for no other reason than Trump is a trader and investor, not a career war monger. In fact, I would vote for Trump for the very reason all governmentalists and most mini-libertarian types insist that nobody should vote for him: he has never "held" ..."public office"...(translation: Trump has been a producer in lieu of having been a robber and a thief). Murray Rothbard, in a footnote to "Anatomy of the State", quoted Franz Oppenheimer, who said it best: [4] Franz Oppenheimer, The State (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926) pp. 24-27: There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. . . . I propose in the following discussion to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the "economic means" for the satisfaction of need while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means". . . . The State is an organization of the political means. No State, therefore, can come into being until the economic means has created a definite number of objects for the satisfaction of needs, which objects may be taken away or appropriated by warlike robbery. Of course, once one has gained comprehension of this, s/he could never participate in one of those bread-and-circus events ever again. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Shills with newsletter subscriptions to sell and blogs to flog  predict economic armedgeddon just about every issue. And the only solution to save yourself and your family from ruin is just what they happen to be selling too! Lucky us! 
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Good article by Raimondo.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link strike
    Why is this a problem? Friendly ties are preferable to no ties and hostility.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 3 days ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    As your subject article outlines, "...some government people - rulers - are less vicious than others. There are degrees of evil..." No argument here. And, there's certainly "...not much wrong with encouraging peace..." Had Dr Block published some of his work here or other discussion forums in which I had participated at the time, I would have been remiss not to make favorable comments (certainly regarding "Defending the Undefendable", which I used as an "anarchist maintenance manual" for many years prior to my showing up here). I would agree with you regarding his take on abortion. Also I applaud his work with respect to private roadways. No argument with any of this. Block has done excellent work towards liberty and freedom for us all sofar as I'm concerned. When Harry Browne ran for grand wizard of the klan, I was disenchanted to say the least. I remember a letter by Jack Pugsley that expressed my sentiments succinctly regarding what I considered at the time to be "Harry's feet of clay". And, as I continue on this ride there will be other head-jarrings I'll need to contend with -- and keep my peace. After all, I can't be right all the time. I thought I was wrong once. Then discovered my error. :-[ . Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 3 days ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    Good morning, Sam. I agree with you that Block has been too generous in his support for Trump. The referenced article is just his latest.   Two years ago I reviewed his book "Towards a Libertarian Society" here, and found it fell short. More recently here, I suggested that his foundation of "Libertarians for Trump", as a group, was a very bad idea. His current article extends that, suggesting that he's foolishly paid my reasoning no heed.   At the same time, Block has done outstanding work to advance libertarian thought, and his "Defending the Undefendable" is a classic. A few years ago he came up with an unique and creative proposal to resolve the thorny old problem of abortion, incidentally getting booed when he presented it to an audience of Ron Paulians; see my STRticle about that.   So, he's a mixed bag. As for supporting Trump, he goes too far; but we can consider these candidates on two levels. First, they are all repugnant to good ethics (as above) and should be shunned by decent people; as you often say, abstain from beans. None of them will bring about a free society; that can only be done this way. The other level, however, is to speak or write in their favor when they propose something that will help that process, or make life less disagreeable while it is taking place; and there, I reckon that Trump scores quite well. Specifically, he intends to protect gun rights, and to make realistic deals with foreign governments whose effect is likely to reduce the risk of major war.   Not much wrong with encouraging peace. There's no liberty in a nuclear winter.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 4 days ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    From "Rule vs Morality": "...The first thing to derive from that axiom is that government in all its manifestations is wholly immoral. Consequently it is impossible for a governor (ruler) to be moral, any more than a rapist or thief could be moral; each would be a perfect example of an oxymoron..." Your essay consists of your typical good perspective. One thing I find disturbingly puzzling is when former "libertarian" icons (at least those I once thought of as "icons") succor prospective governors (rulers) such as Ron Paul and/or Donald Trump. Read this: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/no_author/scholars-trump/ There is often the temptation on my part to write rebuttal(s) to Walter Block. Then I have to stop and understand: no matter what I might have to say to Dr Block, he will steadfastly garner his armor about himself and defend his "position". I am no match to Block in the art of verbal swordplay. Nor would I wish to be. 'Though I can only speak for myself, I suppose many of us possess undergirding with feet of clay. Sam
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 4 weeks 5 days ago Web link Westernerd
    I say "any military commander" because that's the sort of person who would command the State forces. . . and yes, in the context of a clash of armies, that's how it works. In the context of a standing army fighting guerilla forces. . . no army has ever won. With armed Americans having a 3,200% (to 3,600%) numerical advantage, the possibility of the standing forces achieving victory is closer to zero than at any time in history. It will take a systemic realization of this if the State is to do what has never been done before . . having a change of heart. Where John Whitehead's writings could convince the average person to give up hope, to believe that "Resistance is Futile," I counter with information that could shore up courage.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 5 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Something in me caused me to stop short in my allusion to the religion phenomenon. Perhaps it's because I want y'all to like me, and I know there is a mindset surrounding the venue here that discounts anything of a religious nature. The human mind, or spirit, is a puzzler. The only libertarian writer I've encountered who seemed willing to tackle the human mind has been the late Delmar England, whom I never met either on-line or in person. And who gained little recognition or credibility in the "libertarian" world (quotes intended). Yet, unless one broaches and tries to understand the human mind, she will make little headway in promulgating "libertarianism" -- or liberty. In my humble opinion (which ain't so humble). Enough about England. I give certain credence to the Hebrew Bible. Not because I believe in an omni-god who's sitting up there somewhere "...making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty or nice..." That has nothing to do with the methods I use to refrain from discounting the centerpiece apparently used by virtually all religious leaders we know of in this "bible-belt" part of the world. Even the Muslims use bits and parts of the Book to substantiate their ideals. To say nothing of, for, or against "the Jews" (most who use that term know nothing about to what or to whom they refer -- another topic for another thread, perhaps on another forum altogether). I use four scientific observations to substantiate my claim (that the Book has certain reliance): 1) It's about the most popular book in town. I suspect you have at least one version, interpretation, rendition, translation and/or "exposition" somewhere. 2) It is utilized by and considered to provide the substance of almost all religion that we know of by their leaders and their promulgators. 3) Most who claim to preach from it drift so far afield from it's central theme that it's humorous -- if it were not so deadly tragic. 4) It's a book of anarchy from stem to stern. I'll deal with the last (4th) observation as it pertains to STR and most of our discussions here. I look at this chapter to be the fulcrum, or central theme, that underpins the book -- and that ties it to anarchy, and to STR, and to most of the other forums to which many of us visit and subscribe. It appears that there is an eerie, almost electromagnetic "pull" (I call it "spirit" for lack of less religious-sounding descriptor) in the human mind toward subservience -- the desire to be ruled, to be "protected", to be "secured" -- from "them" (the bad guys, whomever they might be). And, even though the evidence is right out in front of everybody, it only seems to occur to the .001% (that would be me, and, hopefully, thee) that the real, genuine threat comes from the "Protector" -- the "Securer" -- The King. So, Ken, I have hope. Some might call it hope against hope. I have hope that somebody will read this and will seek to become free of that "pull", or "spirit", that lands them right back into belief in partisan politics, and rulership. I have faith, I guess you could say, in the Internet Reformation. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 5 days ago Web link Westernerd
    The only thing I'll disagree with, Ken, is your final "...there is none..." (hope). I believe there is. But it may not take place in the way most of us posting here at STR expect. However, I'm a believer in the internet reformation. I'm not a religious man. In my past I've dabbled with this and some other organized "church" -- mainly as a youthful father, attempting sincerely (but somewhat futilely) to find answers for successful parenting among the religious. I had not been in the same room with a newborn infant until after I returned from murderous conscription (slavery) in a far-off land. Suddenly (9 months and 12 seconds :-] after landing back on "US soil") I became a father. Mama had warned me about good Jewish boys marrying good Catholic girls. A few years after my return I discovered that I had become a national distributor of young Catholics. Mama was right. It appeared to me at the time that the religious had solutions that I desperately needed in order to become a successful parent with no training whatsoever -- zilch. And, as grandpa of many, I find myself tippy-toing around family members who are doing the same thing: subscribing to this and some other church or religion to provide "example" for the grand- and great-grandkids. My hope is that I've instilled in them a penchant for thinking as individuals in lieu of following as collectivists, and that the proclivity for individual liberty will win-out in time. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 5 days ago Web link KenK
    Keep in mind this was a collectivist operating in a collectivist world. It is easy for an individual to procure an AR-15. Don't submit. The black market is the only truly free (well, mostly free 'long as you don't get caught by the white man) market. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 weeks 5 days ago Web link Westernerd
    The real tragedy of our age isn't the approaching apocalypse. It's that it never comes. The powers-that-be just muddle through it all and we have to endure our slow strangulation as best we're able. The truth: Abstain from hope. There is none.  Ken.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 5 days ago Web link Westernerd
    '..."it will require a change of heart among the American people, a reawakening of the American spirit, and a citizenry that cares more about their freedoms than [the State's] fantasy games" and while I'd prefer "mind" to "heart" and "people" to "a citizenry"...' Thanks for catching and pasting this caveat by Dr Whitehead. Perhaps I might well take back my diatribe (some of it). And, your "...Power of One..." is important. I'm in agreement -- I'll always lean toward the individualist, away from the collectivist, mindset. Collectivism is what the idea of war, even "guerilla war", is about. I had such traumatic experience as a snot-nose kid in Korea (too many arms, too much ammo, too much idle time on the hands of too many snot-nose kids -- too many stupid "accidents" leaving too many friends dead and permanently wounded) that I've shied away from firearms while raising a large group of kids in relative peace. I've learned to live a life of freedom and liberty without leaning on the idea of gun-ownership for myself -- not that I'm on the collectivists' "gun control" side of things by any means. 'Nuff said about that. There are things one can do. Here are some videos (I think they're free, but you might discover they won't work for you, because we might be paying for Black's "Sovereign Man" newsletters): https://secure.sovereignman.com/plf_planb/b/training/video01_planb/?utm_... I've said for years that it is not necessary for me to "make" anybody else free in order for me to be free. Yes, I can write and talk about freedom, and I can encourage my neighbors, friends and family by personal example (by the way I live my life); but when the final bell tolls it will be up to the individual as to whether she will be free or slave. It has to start between the ears. Individually. Sam (Oh -- by the way. Please abstain from beans -- although I'm aware, Jim, that it is not necessary to admonish you in that regard :-] )
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 weeks 5 days ago Web link KenK
    Like Groucho Marx's famous quip here: "Nobody should be able to have a gun that I could buy." 
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 5 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Your comparison begins with "Any military commander..." and within the context of armies facing each other which have similar degrees of command, control and discipline, you may well be right.   But that doesn't apply here. The government forces have that structure; we their victims do not. Only a guerilla war might succeed in putting that 3200:1 advantage to good use.   There's a much better way than that long, arduous and bloody course. John Whitehead wrote "it will require a change of heart among the American people, a reawakening of the American spirit, and a citizenry that cares more about their freedoms than [the State's] fantasy games" and while I'd prefer "mind" to "heart" and "people" to "a citizenry", I reckon he's about right. Once that understanding of and desire for freedom is widespread, the government's goose is cooked - regardless of its military capability.   Here's how.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 4 weeks 6 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Remember. . . Any military commander worth the name knows he needs a 25% greater force than his opponent - minimum - to achieve victory. A 50% greater force is better, a 100% greater force is a virtual guarantee. Lawful gun owners in the US enjoy - minimum - a 3,200% numerical advantage over the military. . . possibly 3,600% or even greater. . . not to mention, not all of the military (or the police) are going to side with the State. Granted, some of those gun owners will side with the State. . . but not enough I think, to make a difference in the outcome Don't sell Americans short. . . aside from the fact that no standing army has ever defeated a guerilla force. Especially a guerilla force that outnumbers them 32-to-1. Go whine up a rope.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 6 days ago
    The Elastic Standard
    Page Paul Hein
    Forgot to include the story of Robert and Danille Kahre, who's story feeds neatly into Paul's essay: http://freedomshenanigans.blogspot.com/2009/08/robert-kahre-who-paid-in-...
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 6 days ago
    The Elastic Standard
    Page Paul Hein
    The issue, of course, is religion. Not just religion, but the most dangerous of superstitions. But "we" all know that. Right? Yet how often I hear or read -- even on "libertarian" sites, with almost tears in their eyes, individuals lamenting about how far "we" have strayed from "our" constitution. And, of course, that agreement, or however you describe it, referred to coinage produced with "precious metals" (there was actually no other kind at the time, I think). It was a matter of time until someone chanced to submit "script", or "promises" that could be exchanged for precious metal coinage (specie) -- with the idea that a relatively small percentage of depositors would want to exchange "dollars" for gold or silver at any given time. And a matter of additional time before a "federal reserve act" could bedazzle a faithful serfdom. And an additional matter of time until the Roosevelts and the Nixons would discover that the hoi polloi would docilely submit to mere sheets of exotic and difficult (for amateur printers) to reproduce pieces of paper with images of dead Caesars. No promise of anything other than debt. But "we-the-people" (not including me -- at least after I began to embrace anarchy) accepted that mentality as with the idea of an omni-god, with a home in a district of collectivism. It would be enforced to be circulated and accepted for payment ("fiat"). Under threat of imprisonment -- and/or ultimate death for non-repentant resistors. Read this: http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/anthony-wile-the-dilemma-of-false.... The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam