Recent comments

Jim wrote: "Elections are, of course, a complete waste of effort; they merely change the zookeepers from time to time." -Quite correct, but it has occurred to me that there is one type of election in which it may well be very meaningful for anarchists to vote, namely an election where the option "None of the above" is stated explicitly on the ballot. It may be very interesting to see the results of such an election. I would be interested to hear opinions on this, because it seems to me it may be meaningful for anarchists campaign for such ballots. Not that the government is likely to ever do it that way (imagine the horror when "None of the above" wins an election in a landslide!). But the campaign itself will raise awareness of how hollow a thing democracy is.

The government office with the largest number of people who "work for this utterly evil organization", is the office of "citizen". "The...system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around. What do you see. Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." ~ Morpheus

Hello voluntaryist, That is good company to be in!! Wow! I imagine being with them when I listen to their students Stephan Molyneux at Freedomain Radio and Lew and Jeffrey Tucker or Thomas DiLorenzo's podcasts at Lewrockwell.com. Your points are well made. And I concur. I was discussing Tesla and Einstein with a friend recently... Jeffrey Tucker of Mises.org beautifully explains the importance of ideas and how ideas work (no mention of Tesla or Einstein here but certainly of Ludwig Von Mises). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw_oDcRN3gI&feature=related I am perusing this, which I just found: http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-shrugged/atlas-shrugged-plot-synopsis In Part III the heroes leave the world to those in Part I and II whose world has collapsed because of the contradictions they continue to hold. It was in that regard that I was using the burning issues trap. It took a few days to think this thru again, hence my non-timely reply. I just finished this ** Stateless but not Lawless: Myths of Violence in the Old American West ** Exclusive Interview with Dr Thomas DiLorenzo I will never be able to hear the words, 'Wild West' again without saying to myself "No, it was not!". *Law and Order did not (and does not) require a Government at all. *The Old West was mostly Peaceful UNTIL the US Government arrived and perpetrated the genocide of the American Indians. *Unlearning what we [I] have been taught through television and movies; a foundational show. Hosted by Michael McKay. I read Dr. DiLorenzo's scholarship Here http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_04_dilorenzo.pdf Or here http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803 Or Listen http://www.radiofreemarket.com/archives/stateless-not-lawless-crucial-in...

I will conceed that I believe in a "Divine Creator" I see the evidence of the Deitys existance everyday, but what does it have to do with the search for Liberty. Nothing. But I must agree that it is being awful nasty to be so perverse with someone who believes. To attack anothers belief system I believe negates that individuals honesty with Liberty. I get the feeling that someone who is so ardently hateful towards Christianity says there is a problem somewhere. Christian, atheist and Jew all die in a fox hole.

A fool's errand, Jim. These people sold their souls long ago. There's no fixing them. Oh, and you don't think cops and people in a prosecutor's office are not also "hopelessly intoxicated with power"? Of course that is one of the main benefits of their job. Fortunately our liberty does not depend on convincing such corrupt people to do the right thing.

(Re-posted as a Reply)

How are you proposing this one dollar was stolen,by actual theft by neighbor or political theft. Though they may be synonamous they are two entirely different things. Merely because you have Liberty here does not mean you have Liberty. This may work in a Utopic society, but is inoperable in reality. What is your solution to the problem and how would you implement it. Right now as I am viewing it what you propose is no different than what is occuring right now and has occurred since Wilson and Roosevelt, maybe even further back.

The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Psa 14:1 For those who seem to have an interest> http://whomadegod.org/2011/08/god-science-and-evolution-part-2/ The divorce between science and religion is one of the most significant aspects of our modern philosophical scene. The unity of truth and knowledge, which has always been a prime objective of thinkers down the ages, has been all but aban­doned by our Western culture. It has been replaced by a schizophrenic world-view which divorces the ‘real’ pragmatic world of science (the material universe) from the insubstantial thought-world in which philosophy and religious belief are permitted to function, like birds imprisoned in a cage of sub­jectivity. This dichotomy between our inner and outward lives is bound to introduce serious tensions on both the per­sonal and social levels. The ‘real’ world of social intercourse and political decision is no longer regulated, as it once was, by considerations of a philosophical and religious character. Legislation and morality alike are guided by a doctrine of blind pragmatic convenience rather than by moral absolutes, however dimly perceived. We do not today mould our social and political institutions by reference to God’s moral laws, or even to the nature of man as a being created in the image of God. All is empirical and the only guiding principle we recognize is the law of cause and effect It is quite unfair, of course, to blame this state of affairs upon ‘science’. Rather, science has merely provided an excuse for the rejection of spiritual principles and a belief in the moral authority of God. The founders of modern science actually saw the new ‘natural philosophy’ as demonstrating the order and harmony of creation and thus the existence and power of God. Today these same scientific disciplines are used by many to urge the redundancy of the spiritual dimen­sion and banish God from His own universe. The god of evolution has replaced the God of creation and revelation. That this has been allowed to happen is the fault of religious leaders rather than of scientists. In our own ‘Christian’ society the churches have themselves largely rejected the concept of objective revelation and a belief in the authority of the Bible, in favour of pragmatism. They have tried to carry over the scientific method into theology, not realiz­ing that empiricism, which is a proper basis for physical science, is entirely inappropriate in our approach to God. This is not to say that Christianity is not experimental. In­deed, it is. But, unlike the physical world, God cannot be known by a humanistic methodology which begins with our­selves and our unaided senses. His transcendent nature together with our human blindness to spiritual truth require God to make Himself known, that is, they necessitate revelation, a concept both unknown and inappropriate to scientific endeavour. Other Christian leaders, while clinging to biblical authority, have erred by withdrawing from the real world of practical experience into subjectivism. By confining the gospel of Jesus Christ to the purely personal realm, they have inadver­tently underwritten the very dichotomy between the natural and spiritual worlds upon which materialism thrives. Admit­tedly, Christianity is a personal issue, involving the reconcili­ation of the individual sinner to God through the death and resurrection of Christ. But it is more than a personal matter since it involves a unified world-view in which man, nature, society and God are set in their proper relationships to one another. Starved of this philosophical unity, the Christian message becomes emaciated and the individual believer is forced, by default, to accept an essentially humanistic and even materialistic interpretation of the ‘real’ or natural world in which he has to function day by day. The tension between his inner beliefs and his practical life can become well nigh unbearable and may lead to demoralization and tacit with­drawal from the warfare of faith. Perhaps I have overdrawn the picture, but the problems described are undoubtedly genuine. It would seem, then, that those who are both scientists and Christians have a special responsibility to do all in their power to correct the mistakes that have been made in these matters. Negatively, they must expose and reject the misuse of science as a handmaid of materialistic philosophy. They must refute the claim that science demonstrates the irrelevance and subjectivity of religious faith. They must argue that materialistic and evo­lutionary world-views are just as much philosophies as are Christian and religious world-views, that science no more authenticates the one than the other. They must show that science of itself is incapable of providing a complete philo­sophy of life and being; indeed, that science can only be understood in terms of ultimately spiritual principles. Posi­tively, they must present an alternative biblical philosophy of nature and man that is true to both science and revelation and that will enable ordinary men to appreciate the essential unity of truth, both religious and scientific. They must offer a framework of thought in which the glories of God and man (as His special creation and the object of redeeming love) may be appreciated and in which also the individual, sinner though he be, may discover a dignity, liberty and purpose which materialistic humanism denies him absolutely. This book is offered as a modest contribution to the fulfil­ment of these responsibilities. A collection of lectures and essays is not, perhaps, the best means of doing this, since it runs the risk of being disjointed and incomplete. On the other hand, the lectures and writings reproduced here have proved helpful to the few who have received them and may therefore be of value to a wider audience. The chapters have been arranged to give a progression, from statements of broad principles and options, to much more detailed arguments on the nature of science and creation and the interpretation of miracles and providence in an age of science. Next the question of theistic evolution is considered and rejected as a means of reconciling biblical teaching with a scientific view of origins. The positive alternatives are then brought forward once again. Finally, almost as a postscript, there is an essay on the age of the earth, a subject fundamen­tal to the evolutionary world-view which is so totally inimical to the biblical outlook. What is nothing? Existence exists. The accuuracy of the declaration that God created the cosmos out of ''nothing'' depends on which definition of 'nothing' the statement implies. There are five. 1) Lack of matter. 2)Lack of matter and energy. 3)Lack of matter, energy and the four large expanding space-time dimensions of the universe. 4)Lack of matter, energy and all ten space-time dimensions of the universe. 5)Lack of any entity,being,existence,dimensionality,activity,or substance whatsoever. The bible says God created the universe, we detect and measure, from that which no human can detect or measure.In other words the universe came from nothing as defined in #4 above. A recent scientific discovery which is of great import is that the universe is finite!

If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the *universe*?"--recognize that you are asking: "What's outside of *existence*?" I do think that was the complete sentence provided in the above excerpt from the article I also linked in my prior post... *Existence* http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html

There is no such thing as "the universe", anymore than there is such a thing as "the people", they are both made up of INDIVIDUAL ENTITIES.

First sentence: "It’s perfectly understandable why commercial shipping vessels are prohibited from carrying arms in international waters." No it's not. It's perfectly stupid. Why huge ships should be vulnerable to idiots in small boats is beyond me. One man with a sniper rifle should easily stop any boarding attempt.

"The unsettling implication lurking beneath this story is that if Halstead had been spraying graffiti, this sort of treatment would have been perfectly appropriate." My sentiments exactly. As long as Americans tolerate the abuse of those later found guilty, the abuse of those later found innocent will continue.

It seems to me the issue here is not about whether anarchists should believe in God or not. It is a simple issue of tactics. If we are going to bring down the government, we'll need the support of a very substantial majority of people. Most of them are religious. The vast majority of the religious ones are going to remain religious irrespective of what arguments you throw at them. Thus, it will be necessary to convince huge numbers of religious folks that they should turn to political anarchism. I know this from personal experience: with many of them, if they even suspect that you are an atheist, they no longer listen to a word you say. Make atheism an indispensable part of anarchism, or even just word your arguments in such a way that they think that is what you are saying, and the vast majority of people will never accept anarchism. Therefore, however silly we may think religion is, in my opinion it is imperative that we stay clear of that subject, or risk alienating literally millions upon millions of potential supporters. Religious folks will never in a million years support a political theory that advertises itself as atheist. It seems to me that anarchism in fact holds many advantages for religious believers, simply because it quite explicitly allows you to think and believe as you wish. Large number of religious folks specifically want to the government out of their lives, e.g. in America lots of parents who home school do so in order to keep their kids away from the godless teachings of public schools. The complete dissolution of public schools will suit them just fine, and perhaps it is a good idea to point this out to them instead of trying to turn them away from religion. Here's another example: the Amish is a profoundly religious community. What do you think: do they want more or less government interference in their lives? It seems to me they are already in some respects an anarchist society, despite their religion. Consider that in most of western Europe, home schooling is illegal, as are private schools. I can well imagine that in those nations, religious people will be far more open to anarchism than the socialist majority. It is of course true that there are grouping of religious fundamentalists who very much want a powerful state to ram their religion down everyone else's throats. But they also tend to be the least likely to abandon their religion; it will once again be a far better idea to simply convince them of the desirability of separation between church and state than to try to get them to abandon their religion. I spent a good fifteen years on a mailing list where they debated creationism versus evolution. The evolutionists made absolutely watertight arguments. In all that time, perhaps two hundred creationists joined the list and participated in the debate. Two of them eventually abandoned their religion. The others ended up believing even more firmly (because the attacks on their beliefs made them feel like martyrs!) Trying to get religious believers to abandon their religion is for the most part a pointless waste of time, and from a tactical viewpoint extremely misguided, if you ask me. If we really have to turn everyone into atheists before we can get rid of government, then I fear we will all remain governed for the rest of eternity. Do not alienate potential supporters simply because they hold eccentric personal beliefs. Anarchism = individualism: we will never all believe exactly the same things, and that is kind of the whole point. If we first have to make everyone into perfect clones of one another before we can be free, then what kind of freedom do we get?

You're welcome, Eugen, and it's a real challenge to the imagination, to visualize a free society. It will be radically different from what's familiar. Without government, for example, there would be no obstacle for a rival to enter the trade and undercut the plutocrat; as you say, he'd have no protection. Once competitors got weaving, wages would be bid up. Can there be "widespread unemployment" in a free society? - How? There _might_ be some during the transition, assuming it happens fast once it begins :-) I reckon that in the US about 40 million work directly or indirectly for government (around a third of all workers) and that's a huge number for any job market to absorb in a short time. There may also be an understandable reluctance among formerly overpaid bureau-rats to take a steep pay cut and do real work. But this will be a temporary problem at worst and the longer the period over which it can be spread, the easier it will be. To that end, recently I put up http://TinyURL.com/QuitGov to encourage an early start.

AtlasAikido: I can respond to the burning issues of society, and live my life. I do both. The two are not mutually exclusive. You do the same. Your post here is an indirect approach. From it I assume you also take the direct approach, "making your life as meaningful, free exciting, and joyous as possible". I am self centered, so I prefer the direct approach. Looking back over the last 70 years I can see the social issues were certainly not incidental. Although, it is difficult to ascertain the full importance of living in an unfree world without doing it over in a free one, I can get some idea by considering past events. It has recently been revealed that the Cuban Missile Crisis almost killed over a hundred million. We dodged a bullet. Go to many parts of the world where the landscape is dotted with military cemeteries. They caught the bullet. Is the world the same without them? We will never know how many Teslas or Einsteins were lost. The dead don't complain. While most are civilized they support an uncivilized elite who kill and exploit until social collapse. Then a restart occurs with the same system. Do you think Rand or Rothbard sacrificed for social change? Or did they live their life fully? I knew them both. They lived fully.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement. Actions speak louder than words, and betray actual belief, as opposed to stated belief. If I had to choose an association I would do so first on stated belief, but watch closely to determine if actions matched. But as a preliminary guide to association I would consider attitude and demeanor. I have met self described libertarians who made me nervous with their aggressive, confrontational manner. I sensed a lot of anger and need to "act out". I'm not sure I would want to live in a community filled with these heavily armed people. I am considered confrontational by many statists. But I use words, in a respectful way, without attacking the person. That said, if at a social gathering where someone wanted to introduce me to a highly respected authoritarian type such as Harry Reid or just a sell out like Alan Greenspan, I would refuse. I would/could not smile and shake their hand. I hold society and the individuals who support it in contempt. I do not know how I am perceived by the general public. I am probably considered to be a malcontent who complains about everything. I feel like I am living in an alien world. I do enjoy the people at Libertopia. In conclusion, I care less about what a person says, but more about what he does, e.g., does he "live and let live"?

S2: No it doesn't. Being more technically advanced is only taken as evidence of being a god by those who are deists, e.g., those who are constantly interpreting the world thru their superstition. Those of us not crippled with the deist superstition do not fall on our knees and worship what we have not yet come to understand. We know we are ignorant but can learn, and eventually advance as much as any species. The "god made the world" answer is no answer at all. It is the avoidance of an answer. For example, in science, every answer generates new questions. The "god" answer is an attempt to end questions. Furthermore, it contradicts the original assumption that everything is explainable, i.e., explain god.

"why kill, mame and inflame when a simple and civilly conducted arrest or invitation would accomplish the goal of securing the person for a legal hearing?" Well, Waco was long planned by ATF as a flashy venture to impress Congress before a bill extending their funding came up. An ordinary quiet arrest and trial would have been no help to them with that. "And, by the way, why do judges get a free pass on issuing these daft and idiotic warrants?" Because they face no disincentives. And power corrupts, etc. All of this is no surprise to anyone with an understanding of human nature. People work in their own interests (with few scruples about it, too), not for "the common good" despite what the propaganda says.

So a politician lied to get elected. Surprise, surprise.

eugenedw, you wrote "Fail to pay your workers a living wage, and they'll have your head on a platter" in a zero-government society. How, exactly? - I mean, how could such a situation arise? If an employer offered inadequate wages, he'd not get any help. But if he did and got some, that would happen under the terms of a contract, enforcible by free-market courts. If he later reneged and paid less than contracted, the employee could either just quit for a better job, and/or sue him and expect to win. There being no government all money would be honest - most likely, Krugerrands in your part of the world. Nobody could reduce their value, like government cuts the value of its fiat money so as to cause inflation. So if the boss honored his side of the contract, the wage could not fall. In fact on the precedent of the 19th Century, gold money would probably _rise_ a little in purchasing power. Or do you perhaps foresee a gold bonanza, the discovery of a major, rich new vein in the Drakenberg? - that would have an effect, but it would affect everyone in the economy, not just a single skinflint employer.

Question: Who forces any of us to use a social security number? I asked that because, if one does not use any of the government chattel numbers, for all intensive purposes, one does not exist. nonperson noun▸someone who a government says does not exist ~ Macmillan Dictionary nonperson▸ noun: a person* regarded as nonexistent and having no rights ~ WordNet *Anyone else catch that, a "nonperson" is "a person"? "...having no rights"? But wait, I thought... “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men... are endowed...with certain unalienable Rights...” "All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property" And, I thought... "natural rights [are] rights which persons[1] [humans] possess by nature: that is, without the intervention of agreement, or in the absence of political and legal institutions. Natural rights are therefore attributable to individuals without distinction of time or place."[2] And, tzo says... "You can have a government, or you can have inalienable rights[3]. Choose one, but then please, do not complain that you do not have the other." And, oh, the tie-in to the article? There can be no "theft" of that which you do not have. ________________________________________ [1] Corporations, which are "persons", do not have natural rights, because they are not "formed by nature"; they are "formed by human laws for purposes of society and government." [2] Andrew Reeve, Professor of Politics, University of Warwick, Coventry, U.K. [3] Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1057 ABRIDGE, v.t. ...2. To lessen; to diminish... 3. To deprive; to cut off from... as to abridge one of his rights, or enjoyments. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language "You have rights antecedent [prior] to all earthly governments, rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States [Emphasis added]

From the article: "Workers unions are a more direct representation of the violence imposed by the left and progressives. Unions have used intimidation to coerce their employers to pay them more than their labor would be valued in a free and open market [.pdf]. Employers have become slaves of workers, and as a result there are fewer workers, because some employers can’t afford to pay the salaries and benefits that the unions have forced them to pay either through “negotiations” or through legislative force." The above may well be true, but there is something to keep in mind here. In a society without government, there will no longer be government structures to protect workers who strike etc. But there will also no longer be any government force to protect employers against their own workers. Fail to pay your workers a living wage, and they'll have your head on a platter. You could possibly appoint hired guns to protect yourself and your property, but so can they (and it may well be more expensive than simply paying your workers a bit more and yourself a bit less). Worker unions will probably still exist, and may well actually have more power than they do now. Thus, rather ironically, my guess is that a government-free society will in some respects be more socialistic than the current one. At least as far as income equality is concerned. In societies with sweat shops and that sort of thing, it is ironically the socialist "people's governments" that in fact keep the repression and exploitation going by preventing or stamping out worker revolts in the name of "keeping public order." The employers on their own, without government help, will not be able to do it and will likely be far more inclined to talk to their workers instead of simply spraying them with water cannons and tear gas. I am not an American, so I am reluctant to make sweeping statements about America, but my guess is that neither the leftwing "progressives" nor the rightwing neocons are interested in socialism as such. They are interested in preserving the status quo in the interest of a small number of privileged people. Obama may well claim that he wants better conditions for workers, but his policies are not achieving that - they are keeping things the same, or indeed making it even worse for employees. Exactly the same thing happens here in South Africa, where we have a nominally leftwing government of corrupt, incompetent parasites who like standing on stages talking about human rights, but in fact do little more than enriching themselves and their cronies. They are all for worker rights until there is a demonstration by workers, at which point they send in gangs of armed thugs to stamp it out. They are all for developing local entrepreneurial activity, until a few people put up small vending businesses in the city center, at which point the armed thugs are once again sent in to destroy these (and, usually, help themselves to the merchandise). So much for government by the people, for the people! Alas, in election after election, the victims of these goons vote them back into power, firmly believing that this time round the outcome will be different.

Maybe this will help us decide. "A U.S. Justice Department report released on November 30 showed that a record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of last year. Of the total, 2.2 million were in prison or jail. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College in London, more people are behind bars in the United States [population 313,412,000 (2012)] than in any other country. China [1,339,724,852 (2010)] ranks second with 1.5 million prisoners, followed by Russia with 870,000. The U.S. incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 people in the highest, followed by 611 in Russia and 547 for St. Kitts and Nevis. In contrast, the incarceration rates in many Western industrial nations range around 100 per 100,000 people."

"An Identity Document (ID) is an official document used to identify yourself. Every country...needs to be able to identify its citizens..." I don't need "an official document...to identify myself"; I already know who I am. Those humans who act as agents of the government do not have the lawful authority to force an ID (identity document) on any one who has not voluntarily submitted his, or her, self to the dominion of the government, i.e. who are not "its citizens", any more than a man can lawfully put a brand or ear-tag on a cow that doesn't belong to him. "Its" is the "possessive form of the pronoun it[1]". [Emphasis added] These individuals are not possessed; they belong to no man, and they especially do not belong to any "it"; they are self-governing, and therefor any "official" identity documentation must originate from their authoritative source, themselves. Anyone who really needs to know who I am need only ask Francis, the old woman across the road, the one who I built a landing and set of stairs for, because she had no safe way into, or out of, her single-wide trailer. I'm fairly certain that she would recognize me. _____________________________ [1] Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition, page 793