Recent comments

  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 weeks 13 hours ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Santa Claus is arguably one of our better allies. After all, how many grownups believe in him? Who has not had some faith in magic shaken by the discovery he was just a fraud perpetrated on kids too young to know better? I wish all state fairy tales were as transparent as Santa Claus. I think one great tool for fighting magic is the single word, "Why"? Asking this question of rituals exposes immediately the nonsense. Trying to justify rituals is actually quite difficult, because rituals depend so strongly on never being questioned at all, and because they are so ridiculous. I often wondered what would happen if I were called to testify in court and when I was supposed to swear to tell the truth, I said, "I'm not a Christian, and I try to avoid having religious opinions of any stripe. Why should I swear to anything?" "If we do overcome our childhood indoctrination, we will likely be branded as a heretic and cast out of polite society, becoming an outcast or outlaw." I think that itself is a bit of magic. The rulers like to perpetuate this story but the reality is mostly different. One is less and less likely, over the years, to be cast out merely due to having different opinions. In fact it could be said that having a different opinion is a way to become popular because people get bored over the same old pablum time after time, and want to hear something different - even if they may not agree with it. We are not living in Puritan Boston any more. Of course I could be wrong due to my living in Portlandia, where odd opinions are routine. Anyway, good article! I think you are right about the direction things are going.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 weeks 1 day ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Glock, There is no one best method or plan to strike at the root of the state and we should all do what we think is best.  As to engaging politicians, which did much of in my younger years, I think you summed it up with the statement "All legislators have already made up their minds upon all issues."  This is a futile quest; much like getting a department store who hires Santas at X'mas time for promotional purposes to put up a sign reporting he is a fake.  But keep doing what you're doing because others (perhaps lackeys as you say) in earshot may get a clue because of it.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 3 weeks 1 day ago Web link strike
    Social networking can be a highly useful tool, but facebook is evil. Join tsu, a rapidly growing social network that shares ad revenue with users. Lots of social networks have attempted to compete with facebook's near-monopoly on social media, but they've all failed to gain traction in terms of having enough people on there to be really useful as a social networking tool. What else can possibly overcome facebook's social inertia other than a positive feedback loop that pays people to join, invite their friends, create and share content? It's pseudo-invite-only right now, so basically you need to pick an existing user and input their name when tsu asks who invited you. Whoever you input gets credit for inviting you, which adds up, so if you don't know me and so don't want to give me credit you can pick among any number of alternative users to join up. Here's mine (but if I seem unethical or untrustworthy, don't participate in indirectly funding me by using me as your invite): tsu.co/evanlpierce Here's who invited me (I support paul's goals of world domination gardening and so don't mind helping to indirectly fund him): tsu.co/paulwheaton Here's a charity (I don't know much about this charity but they seem nice and I think it's an option): tsu.co/charitywater Tarrin Lupo, fellow liberty lover, agorist, and natural doc, is also on tsu, and you can use his link: tsu.co/drlupo I bet you could probably google some other users who you liked more and use them as your invites. It's growing pretty fast. Invite all your friends and together we can obsoletize facebook. Today facebook, tomorrow the state. :)
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 3 weeks 2 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Mark, Paragraph 2: "....many feel as there is little we can do to change it..." This has been my frustration. Many on this site will disdain me for my daily attacks on State and Federal Legislators, but it is my tool to fight rather than to philosophize. I believe we must accept the current situation, like it or not, and gain the temerity to strike. From my perspective, Striking the Root is not a philosophy. Striking is an active verb, implying an action is being taken. The Root is the Noun existing as a metaphor for what needs to be struck, and Striking the Root means to me taking the tools they use against the population and use it back at them. This is exactly what is happening with Muslim terrorist, they are using the "Magic books" to implement their goals in this country. Strike the Root I believe means action and not lack of action. I recognize I can take a huge amount of flack for this. But so far I concede too what you are presenting. Paragraph 3: Fortunately for me I never told my kids about Santa. I expressed to them the actual, fundamental rational for Christmas. Yes. I forced them to church and bible school, and bible camps, but reached a point and told them. "You no longer have to participate. You must come up with your own responsible decision regarding the issue of Christmas, and church". None have returned to the fold, so I guess they made their decision. This topic aggravates me because far too many people accept the bible at word without any investigation. They fail to consider the time, the culture, the language, the metaphors and allusions in how they phrased conversation. The bible is mostly a political document. Is the bible a lie? I say no--its just that far too many people fail to honestly search the other sources which helps to clarify enormous amounts of misconception. Stop. Paragraph 4: Beautifully illustrated. Reminds me of the House Boy blaming Christians from centuries past for the current terrorist brutality. They are just now getting even with us. Ha! Paragraph 5: Like I said earlier the bible is first and foremost a political tool (the majority of it is) used by the patriarchs as well as a cultural history, linguistic text and etc. No more comments Mark. I think you present some excellent philosophical points. As for me I am probably a mix of black and white magic. Political events sicken me, but I cannot sit and not do anything more than pine over the tragedies which are occurring. There is probably no one on this site who would dare respond to legislators local, state, or federal, as I do. It would be beneath them to take up the hatchet and hack away and to me philosophizing accomplishes very little. I attempt to use their own magic against them and draw from sources as this site for select remarks to shoot at legislators. I guess I am beginning to like the idea of calling myself the "Verbal Sniper". Currently I suspect that I am under scrutiny regarding my remarks when I call them liars, cheats, thieves, robbers, illiterate, ignorant, and stupid. Most of my shots seem to be misses, but, if I am lucky some lackey will get turned. All legislators have already made up their minds upon all issues. If it helps to control the people and turn us into a third world country then good. If it involves us not paying taxes, having a successful business and etc. then no.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 3 weeks 2 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Sam, Delmar England's essay you referred is a rather dynamic piece until he comes to utilizing the terms of conscious and sub-conscious, terms he had to have been taught (coming form Freud who has been debunked a long time back). It is clearly an article to not be read once but must be analysed for what the content is actually saying. Simply to me it is everything we have been taught from birth onward is nothing more than lies running the course of life. A casual reading leaves my head swirling,wow, stop the merry-go-round and let me off. My mind is not as functional as it once was. Supposedly as we age we are to become more wise and filled with experiences vital to everyone. The longer I live the less I seem to know. Thank you for the reference. It is deeply appreciated as it adds ammunition to my battle with the Morons. Again. Thanks.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 3 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    At the risk of overwriting some of the intention of your essay, Mark, I'd like to add the link you posted over at a facebook site. I believe this presenter does a lot to clarify the "magic" that is "rulership": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr0VWqilcGM José Barrera does in much better clarity what I've touted for the last two or three years by the late Delmar England: Insanity as the Social Norm. The comparison of the science of religion with the science of rulership is fascinating to say the least. Like Magic. Sam
  • Yules's picture
    Yules 3 weeks 3 days ago Page Marc J. Victor
    Perhaps the issue is not with people's general receptivity towards the legalization of all drugs, but the way it's worded? Methamphetamine would be my last choice if I were to pick a model illegal drug to be the base of an argument because almost no one has any reasons for getting it legalized. Why should people fight to legalize a drug that they know they're never going to use? The risks obviously outweigh the benefits in their minds. If the title were "Legalize LSD" or "Legalize Psilocybin", people would have an incentive to actually vouch for all-drug legalization because these are drugs with reported therapeutic benefits in psychiatry and the world would gain a lot from their decriminalization - the US would allow scientists to test these substances in clinical trials, which is currently not allowed except in rare, uncomprehensive studies. Psychedelics such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline have also been reported to increase creativity, spirituality, and empathy, but it's impossible to go around saying so because there's no science to back it up. Methamphetamine, on the other hand, has little to no medical or psychotherapeutic benefits and the chemical is pretty much completely understood now. It's not needed for further testing or anything. If the argument has to be centered on a drug with no benefits just to validate the freedom argument, I understand, but it'd be far easier to win people's hearts with the possible benefits of psychedelics and marijuana than a drug that is only associated with violence and self-destruction. Regardless, it's an enlightening article and the best argument for the legalization of drugs that I've seen. Thank you.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 4 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Supervision by parental "authority" will naturally be from honest love. And genuine desire for their welfare. Hopefully. We know there are exceptions -- none of us likes to think of all the incapable and unfit parents out there who neglect and endanger their offspring. It is with care and love that we restrain baby from falls and stairways and dangerous things like household chemicals. And later, deny permission for high-risk activities. As time develops, the children will quite likely take more and more responsibility for our supervision and care. I took care of both Mom and Dad the last years of their lives. I well remember "coercing" Dad to allow me to shower and scrub and shave him every Friday, and trim finger and toenails. I threatened him with the "county-health nurse" (don't think I'd handle it that way nowadays) -- "Dad, all of us smell bad when we don't bathe, and if the county health nurse comes in here and detects you have no personal hygiene or clean clothes she will force you to go to a nursing home!..." No nurse ever came, but I used that as browbeating. He was retired post master -- highly statist and compliant by nature, always prepared for postal inspectors to show up unannounced. I try to refrain from expounding "anarchist theory", because I'm no more capable than the newest member of STR to know how unfit parents are going to be dealt with in a totally free marketplace. None of us has seen liberty -- freedom from state. We've been so saturated with statolatry from childhood, and the legacy handed down by our ancestors before us, that it is truly difficult to even fantasize how hooligan kids and other of these perplexing problems will be dealt with in a totally free community. But deal with them we will. Call that my "religious faith" if you must. As you've outlined, "...social institutions will crumble, elite influence will be exposed...the illusion of social control will eventually be seen by all for what it is: a magic spell..." Sam
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 weeks 4 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Thank you, Sam.  The term "governing unit" implies the use of force to "govern", if so, then I would agree with you.  As you note parents have the only legitimate assumption of power to govern without consent.  However, I believe that voluntary associations which include rules for behavior and mutual aid are legitimate as long as they maintain their voluntary status.  One could argue that these association result in voluntary "governing"; though that may also be considered an oxymoron.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 4 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Good, Mark! Your only "authority" is that which I grant you. Since I've read a number of your essays and communicated with you periodically, I've come to respect you and will generally follow your lead. To that extent I suppose we could agree that you have "authority" or "jurisdiction" -- as long as I do indeed follow the suggestions you present, which you have shown so far to be valid and valuable. Larken Rose has produced a number of good videos that better illustrate that point. "Jurisdiction" is between your ears. "Legitimacy" is an illusion. "Consent-Of-The-Goverened" is criminal mind control. And if 90% of individuals would abruptly come to see that, "jurisdiction" would disappear. There would be anarchy. And anarchy, to the contrary of everything we've been told about anarchy, will be true liberty, security and safety. We can burn all the Black's Law Dictionaries, and all the fairy tales and illusions they encompass. Bills of "rights" and "Constitutions" will be amusing memories of harder times. We've skirted this issue recently on the subject of "circumcision". Of course on that topic the tiny newborn is definitely under "jurisdiction" -- and, whether he likes it or not his foreskin is going to get whacked -- for better or for worse. Unless the parents are "intactivists". But it is up to the parents, and nobody else. I've insisted forever that the family is the only legitimate governing unit -- all else are criminal interlopers. Lots of controversy can be generated from that. Wendy McElroy recently posted a good essay on state as religion. Keep churning out good essays. STR needs them. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Let me start out with an admission: I don't understand sex. I mean, here I am, father of 7, grandpa of 25, great-grandpa of more than I'd like to admit (they make me look old :-[). As an anarchist I'm not certain I can explain dogmatically why it might be considered "aggression" if I were to attempt to seduce your wife, your girl friend, or your daughter. Are there "rules" governing that? And, worse-come-to-worse, if she should acquiesce to my advances, and you were to "catch" us -- would you have just cause (under the non aggression principle "NAP") to shoot me (and/or her) and/or whip our asses? You can rest easy. I'm 80, no longer of a mindset to encroach on anybody else's space in that manner. Even in the event your wife should try to seduce ME (not likely after she took one look) -- I'd have to turn 'er down. Not because of waning libido or lack of interest. It's because, although I might be crazy, I ain't stupid. And it does make for reasonable discussion. Does the husband “own” his wife and/or his children? Does the wife "own" her husband? Should "fidelity" be a condition of marriage for libertarians and anarchists who eschew state-licensed and regulated "marriage"? I'm aware of more than one prominent libertarian who has engaged in and apparently espoused polyamorous "marriages". This particular essay has the aroma of acute personal emotion on the part of the author. Circumcision -- like abortion, homosexual "marriage", unwanted newborns, enforced contraception, etc. -- is a peripheral sex issue. And those issues baffle "libertarians" and "anarchists" (I use quotes to illustrate my opinion that many if not most of us are postulants -- hoping to become the real McCoy by our essays and our comments on anarchist forums). From the standpoint of anarchy, I'm convinced the family is the only legitimate governing unit. I can see it no other way. The human newborn, unlike animals, comes into life without "instinct" -- totally dependent upon adult caregivers for her survival. I find it amusing that "science" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and mainstream media feel duty-bound to include "humans" in their description of mammals to small children. But that's a different topic for a different thread -- on a totally different forum. I wish that all newborns could come into life with loving Moms and Dads, committed to the child's survival, upbringing and welfare throughout their lives. Parents (of both sexes) who will -- with love and care -- restrain and preclude the baby from rolling off the bath table or bed or stairway; prevent access to harmful objects that can (and will) be placed in mouths, ears, noses -- and other embarrassing yet risky areas. Parents who will -- with love -- provide nourishment and sanitary environment; who will -- with love -- teach them right from wrong, good from bad. Until the parents become elderly and the child finds herself caring for Mom and/or Dad -- the rolls reversed. And circumcision. Yea, or nay. Four of my seven kids are boys. All were circumcised. On the eighth day. Not necessarily because that was "...our religious rule..." (or the "rule" of some rabbi) -- but because it makes sense for health reasons. If you're going to circumcise, that is. I'm not your judge. You are your judge. And your child's guardian. You do what you see proper and healthy for your son. Don't let me -- or Kevin -- dissuade you from doing what you see to be in your sons' best interest(s). Also know that once the foreskin is off it can't be replaced. Forget the scams saying differently. Let that also be your guide. There are valid arguments on both sides of this circumcision controversy -- and I'm not referring to the "religious" arguments. You can find as many physicians who soundly believe in circumcision -- that it inhibits many infections and prevents disease -- as you can physicians who are avidly opposed for a number of sound reasons. Read this. Remember: just because you're a physician does not make you an expert on whether the circumcised (or the intact) are going to have better sex lives or better emotional health or better hygiene practices. Some day I might ask my boys (one nearing 60) if they wish I had left them intact -- if they're lives might have been enhanced had they not "...suffered the brutality and violence..." of circumcision. I'd really like to know. And, although we're an open family (they think I'm pretty screwy) we've never discussed penises -- adult penises, that is. Not due to modesty issues -- the topic just hasn't come up, and I'll need to bring it up if there's to be a discussion. I think each of my sons may have counseled with me regarding the decisions pertaining to their sons' circumcisions (15 of the 25 grandchildren are boys, all but one of them sons of my sons). In each case I'm certain I urged the procedure to be on the eighth day -- primarily due to clotting issues. Libertarians who inwardly want to impose their opinions and their wills on others find all facets of sexuality to be no-man's (or woman's) land. Yay or nay -- I won't say. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 3 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Christianity gets such a bad name and most people get hooked into the wrong ideas regarding Christianity. The bible is a political text mostly, then a cultural text, and loaded with allusions, and stories in an attempt to get the idea across. The hard part is for modern humans to understand is the context. It all appears to be simple, but until the period, and cultural elements, language, ideologies, threats and etc. are understood then the whole truth is missed. To get at it other texts have to be read, history, archaeology, language and etc. Reading the bible alone will bring one to some very strange ideas and concepts. I raised one cognizant child, made him attend church, but in the end told him he had to figure it out for himself. I am still trying to figure it out (which he hasn't to date, like me.) It is far easier to not pursue the ideology than it is to invest time into understanding it; which takes more than the bible itself. I regret that there are so many versions of Christianity. This only compounds the problem of understanding it. By the way Hell is merely a political word used in the early centuries to gain control over the people, just like the other Gods, Zeus and etc. To me Hell is merely a separation of the human soul from the divine creator. I buy into evolution only to the point that I think it is a tool the divine creator used to bring this mess together. The Divine Creator puzzles me. Humans were grown on a violent planet, filled with violent critters from large to microscopic and man, the most violent of all because man kills, controls and manipulates simply for the pleasure of it, not to produce food, shelter, warmth and etc. Well. That's my piece to the story. Not a strong argument, but I just cannot accept that all of what is here and now came by accidental events.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 3 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Delightful piece Sam, simply delightful.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 6 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Kevin: "...I’m far from convinced that the family is the best place for one to be..." I didn't say that the family is the "best place for one to be". I said that the family is the only legitimate governing unit. All other claims at "jurisdiction" are interlopers -- enforcing their claims at the point of a gun. Ayn Rand may have been correct in what you quote her as saying about childhood -- that childhood is (or can be) a bummer, etc etc. But for better or for worse you and I came upon the scene totally dependent upon adult caregivers -- usually at least one parent. Period. We would have died in short order without them. For the most part parents love their kids -- or the Mom does fer sure. She's invested 9 months "bonding" with the little shaver tucked down inside her, then pooped it out with agony and pain we men can't fully comprehend. Some don't want or love the child, and stuff their newborn down manholes or do other terrible atrocities to them. But 9 out of 10 times the Mom (and, hopefully, the Dad also) will love the child, and will administrate the child's safety and well-being with affection and love and care. Some circumcise. Others don't. Some are adamantly in favor of circumcision. Others resolutely opposed. Most come to their conclusions over the issue with love and concern for the children's welfare. Some merely have a burning torch. To understand anarchy one must understand that the only "jurisdiction" is the loaded firearm. Or thug with a club. Or perhaps a woman scorned. Or a dad "spanking" his child. That's it. End of story. You can memorize the likes of Black's Law Dictionary to your heart's content, but you won't change the fact that "jurisdiction" does not exist unless there is firepower of one sort or another to cause it to exist. "Libertarians" fight and bicker and argue over the tired old adage "might makes right" -- but either one learns to navigate around "might" or she places herself under "might's" jurisdiction. That's anarchy. It's also what becoming sovereign is all about. I am a sovereign state. Now, if you think you can register with the white man (thanks, Russel Means) and "vote" in one of his "elections" to make everything all better, be my guest. I wish you wouldn't, because that means you're willing to impose your will upon me without my consent. You're free to beat the drum for intactivism. Others will oppose your stance. With all our communication over this issue I don't have a dog in that fight. My seven children are past child-bearing, and now it's up to my grandchildren to produce boys for whom the decision must be made. I rather hope they don't consult Grandpa when that time comes. But if they do, I know how I'll respond. And I ain't a tellin'. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 6 days ago Page Tim Hartnett
    From "Protection/Submission": Want protection? Protect yourself and your own, or join vigilance committees to do the same thing, or submit. Those are your only choices. I tend to steer clear of vigilance "committees" -- generally all "committees" for that matter. I ain't about to "submit" (voluntarily). I agree totally with your two essays -- and Joe Sobran's "Reluctant Anarchist". It's sad that Sobran's life was cut short before he could totally assimilate anarchy. He was on his way. I am a sovereign state. And yes, those psychopaths hiding under the guise of "government" merely engage in protection rackets, held together by obfuscation. They rely solely upon a phenomenon well known to psychopaths, but only recently labelled "Stockholm syndrome". "Voluntary Compliance". The khans, forerunners to "Our-Founding-Fathers", understood well the terror and fear villagers had of the Huns and nomadic hordes. So it was relatively easy for them to begin the process of setting up what we later called the "family of nations". A major stroke of genius was "democracy" -- the ruse that the masses could actually be above the overseers "elected" (appointed, for those of us who understand the reality of the political process) from among them. That those senators and legislators and ministers and presidents would become subservient to "We-The-People". The jive of "terrorism" is particularly humorous to those of us who see through all the dots. How "9-1-1" was actually pulled off is something none of us will ever really know. But, as you infer, "uneasy rides the head that wears the crown". Even totally disarmed (complete "gun control"), the hoi polloi present an ever-present risk. What if all of us become non-compliant at the same time? So, from that point of view, my use of the phrase "monopoly upon violence" fails. Because those presumably "in charge" must constantly keep the critical mass happy -- even those in max-lockup. The majority must always be persuaded to "pledge allegiance to the flag", to be "law-abiding-citizens". Most of our contentions here and at other anarchist forums are disagreements over definition. I've observed for many years that the only legitimate governing unit is the family unit. All others are interlopers. There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" that I don't voluntarily hand to those proclaiming such. Of course I always believe a man with a loaded gun. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 6 days ago Web link Lloyd Ritchey
    Nothing can stir 'em up like sex. Unless it's religion. The two often waltz hand-in-glove. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 6 days ago Web link Lloyd Ritchey
    This is a funny "plant" to appear here at STR: "...since non-vaccinated people can make other people sick in a way that kids who have rejected their government-mandated veggies cannot, it’s a bit trickier sorting out whose rights should trump whose, what level of state authority gets to make that call if any, whether dissenters should be ticketed, arrested, or merely denied public services, and so on. Reason’s Ronald Bailey, for instance, favors “shunning and shaming” those who refuse vaccination..." No comment. Don't shun me, Bro! Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 4 hours ago Web link KenK
    Article: "...A political system that transfers wealth upward didn’t happen by chance, but was the willful creation, and decades in the making, of our corporate and political overlords..." Decades? Naw. Centuries -- millennia to be exact. Read this: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/AnatomyState.html The very first emperors built and then hid under the mindless abstraction they're calling "the system" ("political system" to be more in vogue) . It is designed to perform exactly as it does -- as those who are sheltered by its mantle wish it to perform. Now is the hour for those of us wishing to be free to begin a few basic steps. 1) The very first, of course, is to abstain from beans. Of course if you're reading this, you're already past participating in bread-and-circus events ("elections"). But until a critical mass of ordinary individuals come to see the urgency of ceasing to "vote" it will continue to perform as it is designed to perform. That's the easy step -- but one of the most important. 2) Begin to think and speak and act like free women and men. Those surfing over the key waves of the rulership ocean are NOT "...'our' corporate and political overlords..." They might be Silverstein's "overlords". Because this, like most articles, was planted as a divide-and-conquer tactic to upset the hoi polloi -- to make us angry at "those fat cats" to the extent we can't think clearly and logically. I suspect Ken Silverstein is naive enough to not see himself being used in this manner. In the end far too many of us can be convinced this is a "free market failure". Call them the robbers and thieves that they are. And DON'T think you can "...vote the bastards out..." That's loony-tunes mentality. Read this. 3) I don't think the importance of how you and I think, speak and feel can be strongly enough emphasized. Read this. Then study it -- stem to stern. Throw out what you don't think applies to you; but understand -- if you do read it you should be prepared to discard some of your icons and act like an anarchist. Don't know why this little blurb that is so ordinary on anarchist forums set me off on this rant. Because I'm sure I've only scratched the surface -- you can probably add additional "steps". Be free. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 11 hours ago Web link KenK
    Reminiscent of the old ploy by psychopaths acting under the guise of "Internal Revenue" offering "amnesty" to tax protesters (er..."tax resisters") so some might bite the bullet and submit confessions (euphemism: "file returns"). Under penalty of perjury no less. Voluntary compliance is a marvelous slogan of genius. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 11 hours ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Hitting children and telling them about "magic realms", etc etc etc -- I would agree is aggression and "outdated thinking". Once in a while I'll catch myself using the old term, "spanking new" -- a relic of the days when the GP would hold the newborn up by the feet and spank him to "...initiate the respiration process..." Well, they felt the baby needed to have a good cry so s/he would breath properly. There did come the time when those caregivers involved in child-bearing and live birth came to understand the fetus has feelings, as does the very small child. Trauma suffered in those formative months and years will have a bearing on the personalities and the behaviors of children as they become adults -- and for the rest of their lives. Many of us have internal fears and rages and hang-ups stemming from indiscretions -- aggression -- inflicted upon us when we were tiny babies. Circumcision could fit into that category. But so could vaccinations, blood draws, etc etc. So also could emotional episodes such as Mom and Dad fighting and splitting up, bringing in "step" parents. I'll also agree with you (and Hitchens) about the religious "warnings" -- accept so-and-so (or thus-and-such) or you will be doomed to burn in a hell-fire with no end, etc etc etc. "He's" making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty or nice... I've become what I call a "skeptic's skeptic" -- skeptical of virtually all "conventional wisdom". That includes all "religion"; but also includes subjects sacred to many "libertarians". If a thing is labeled, for instance, "science" (whatever that's supposed to mean), I want to know where the funding came from before I buy it whole-hog. Strange how the "scientific community" (wherever the city lines are drawn) will become "excited" and "issue proclamations" as funding time looms. I simply refuse, for example, to accept the dominant social theme that's been growing the past three or so decades (along with "civil rights", which often turn out to actually amount to "civil wrongs") having to do with homosexuality. I see that whole she-bang as a divide-and-conquer tactic. So -- does that translate into me being "homophobic"? NO! "Phobia" defines fear. I have no "fear" of the phenomenon. Multiple sex partners of any "ism" is high risk for disease, so if a homosexual is engaging in that lifestyle I'd just as soon steer clear; but that goes for other "risky folks". And, since I don't inquire about your or anybody else's lifestyle, I have to live with a certain level of risk or live like a hermit myself. But that gets me 'way off topic. Back to circumcision -- you and I may not be as far apart as you may think. I'm not adamant as you about recommending against it, but I'm certainly not its champion or its cheerleader. The parent must make that choice. With love. Or we hope it's with love. I wish it were with love in all cases. But if wishes were fast trains to Texas I'd be fer from this cold north country right now (that's a line in an old cowboy song, I think). Back to my skepticism, I just don't know. What I do know is that you and I were born into this world totally dependent upon adult caregivers. For better or for worse, that's how we came into being. And that's how we were sustained until we became adolescents and eventually adults. And, just as we provided the care for our children the first dozen or two years of their lives, they might find themselves providing care for us the last dozen or two years of ours. That's the family. For better -- or for worse. Take your pick. Make your choice. I see myself as rather of a protégé of Walter Block (or as much so as a true skeptic can be of anybody). Defending the Undefendable (<==PDF) has been my "bible". But Walter can be a mini-statist when it serves his interest. He stated once that one could not be a "real libertarian" without registering and voting for Ron Paul for Grand Wizard of the Klan. I didn't. And won't. So much for circumcision. Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 weeks 11 hours ago Web link KenK
    What a joke. Looks like the ruling class blinked first...
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 4 weeks 19 hours ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Clicked twice. Oops. 
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 4 weeks 19 hours ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    And a quick note so that I can get off my highhorse: I am not suggesting that I'm some kind of perfect parent. Obviously not. And far, far from it. I realize that there are many great parents out there who love and support their kids. But my hesitation is in believing that they might love their cultural and religious identities even more so, which is tragic. I mean, his grandmother might be loving and sweet or whatever, but she's the same woman who held him in her arms while his penis was being cut (according to one versin of the story). The same woman who forces Catholicism on her kids. Who hits them if they resist. When my son is older (he's only 7 months now) I will be absolutely devasted to find out that she is imposing (actual imposition) these stupid, harmful beliefs on him.  I'm scared to death of it. I used to cry myself to sleep at 7 years old thinking about some place called "hell." I dont want that for him. And so he's going to hear something much different from me.  ....what a terrible thing to be telling to children, as Mr. Hitchens said.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRqqFpgvktk But then, im not innocent here. Nobody forced me to sleep with her. And my conscience eats at me for it. Every. Single. Day. 
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 4 weeks 19 hours ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    And a quick note so that I can get off my highhorse: I am not suggesting that I'm some kind of perfect parent. Obviously not. And far, far from it. I realize that there are many great parents out there who love and support their kids. But my hesitation is in believing that they might love their cultural and religious identities even more so, which is tragic. I mean, his grandmother might be loving and sweet or whatever, but she's the same woman who held him in her arms while his penis was being cut (according to one versin of the story). The same woman who forces Catholicism on her kids. Who hits them if they resist. When my son is older (he's only 7 months now) I will be absolutely devasted to find out that she is imposing (actual imposition) these stupid, harmful beliefs on him.  I'm scared to death of it. I used to cry myself to sleep at 7 years old thinking about some place called "hell." I dont want that for him. And so he's going to hear something much different from me.  ....what a terrible thing to be telling to children, as Mr. Hitchens said.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRqqFpgvktk But then, im not innocent here. Nobody forced me to sleep with her. And my conscience eats at me for it. Every. Single. Day. 
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 4 weeks 19 hours ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    “From the standpoint of anarchy, I'm convinced the family is the only legitimate governing unit.” I’m far from convinced that the family is the best place for one to be. As Ayn Rand said, childhood is actually the very worst time to be alive, because one is a totally dependent serf who has to obey orders under the threat of “legitimate” violence. So great: I get a scar on my penis, I get hit if I don’t enjoy the story about the angry, vengeful god who slaughters everyone he just created. Yeah, childhood is terrible. “I wish that all newborns could come into life with loving Moms and Dads, committed to the child's survival, upbringing and welfare throughout their lives.” Me too. Too bad it’s such a rarity. More often than not, parents want to continue their culture/religion/worldview. And children can’t say fuck off. Circumcision. Despite what you think about “valid” reasoning, ZERO medical institutions in the world recommend infant circumcision, which is why some 80 percent of planet’s male population are intact. Why here? The AAP has had a decades-long policy of ambivalence, going and back and forth, basically telling parents to do what they want. Did you read Block’s essay? “The truth about the debate about circumcision is that there really isn’t one.” Exactly. And reading parents talk about how they need their infant’s penis to look a certain way is disgusting and perverted and I’m goddamn tired of seeing it; all such bogus medical and cultural “justifications” – widespread as they are – must be challenged. If people have their feelings hurt in the process, oh well. “This particular essay has the aroma of acute personal emotion on the part of the author.” What hinted at that? Yes. It’s a very sensitive issue for me. I FUCKING HATE being cut, even despite having a wonderful sex life. I might have been able to find my resolve and come to terms with it if I was able to protect my one (and probably only) son. But then I couldn’t. And it’ll sit on my angry, hate-filled conscience until the day I die. I also agree with Paul when he says don’t make him a professional victim. I understand that. Nevertheless, cynicism is a wonderful thing, and he should be skeptical of everything and everybody – including his family, and including me. After all, he’d have every right to spit in my face when he gets older. I’m a libertarian against aggression. Circumcision is aggression. Hitting them is aggression. Telling them about magical realms that you go to after you die is also bizarre and aggressive in my view. This is outdated thinking, and I’m pretty you understand that Sam. Agreed: the state can’t make people better or smarter individuals. And so I actually depart ways with my Intactivist friends who want police units inside every hospital. It’s not needed, as the issue is a forehead-slapper. It’s so simple it’s stupid. But then culture and conformity are damning vices. But American parents must yield to the facts. The first half of your response baffled me, but I’m very much for polygamy and open relationships. Being committed to a single spouse is not our best quality, us humans. But I do not waste much energy condemning the voluntary contract of marriage. Plenty of people have been together for their whole lives, and that’s truly wonderful.  I just don’t believe it’s for everyone. Cheers. 
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Obviously what I write is influenced by what I believe. That's my "free choice". Two words I've eliminated from my vocabulary: "rights" and "morals". It seems to me that one must be granted, the other imposed. Therefore I like to substitute "choices" and "principles" -- for better or for worse. Decent arguments can be made in both cases. That interjection done I'll go back to your essay and King's choice to express his views openly. I trust the individual more who is straight-forward than I will s/he who tries to surreptitiously enter my back door. Propaganda leans toward the latter. King is the classic statist (with a dose of statolatry intermingled). He exhorts the necessity for you and me to support state. Today he might blame Obama for the woes of the world. A few years back it would have been Bush. King understands that it is lunatics who "make war on the unarmed and unprepared" -- I wonder if he will ever come to understand that war is the health of the state? That's our job. Without equivocation. In retirement, and with little going on here and at other anarchist forums, I've come to spend time watching some of the old cowboy movies (John Wayne, Burt Lancaster, etc) produced when I was but a lad. Sentimental, but today I see them through a completely refined looking glass. I perceive the indoctrination of support for authority, state and war I received from those old 30's and 40's flicks as a child, and smile at my naivety. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 4 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Agreed Paul -- at least until there is a first Voluntaryist celeb, who I think we can rest assured will be stifled and stymied at every opportunity.  We will likely have to build our own Hollywood, as good folks like Sky Conway are attempting to do.  The lamestream of Glitterville are by and large, like King, stuck in the Marxian amber of the 1960s.  Even those few who are not are either afraid to speak out for fear of damaging their careers, or otherwise fear attracting undue attention from Big Brother (a la Wesley Snipes).  Only the already marginalized ones -- e.g., Charlie Sheen, Gary Busey, Nick Nolte -- seem willing to go down the path of left-wing Hollywood culture apostasy, but they're then quite predictably relegated to the status of irrelevant drugged-out laughingstocks.  Eez de vay sings are in Soviet Russia, no, comrade?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    If the denizens of Hollywood (including authors whose works are favored there) had any sense, they would shut up and do their jobs. The idea that they, living as they do in this hothouse of narcissism, have anything to say about the world that would interest ordinary people, is ridiculous.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 4 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Axes are great - my favorite weapon by far is the 2 handed, double-bitted axe. Only dual-wielding hand-and-a-half swords is as much fun. Smaller axes make nice short-range artillery as well. . .
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 weeks 3 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    If circumcision dies out (and I believe it will eventually), it won't be because of such hyperventilation as displayed here, but in spite of it. Do try not to let his lack of foreskin ruin your relationship with your boy, and by all means do not school him in victimhood, one of the worst things that can happen to a child (far worse than any missing foreskin).
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 weeks 3 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    "Protect yourselves from the government I get my paycheck from." Good advice, thanks. However I suspect the problem won't be solved by exhortation. Security does not sell. People only want it after they have suffered an attack. Maybe the answer is flooding the databases with garbage, rather than trying to stop them collecting info. Garbage in, garbage out...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 weeks 3 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Thank heaven it was not $4.01 trillion.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 4 days ago Web link Government Deni...
    You, sir, are indeed a diamond in the rough. Why were you not around STR 2 or 3 years ago? Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 4 weeks 6 days ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    Deleted
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 4 weeks 6 days ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    Deleted
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 weeks 6 days ago Web link Lloyd Ritchey
    Terrible duplication of effort on their part. The BATF already does that.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 5 weeks 4 hours ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    Jim:  Have you thought to send this one along to www.jpfo.org  ?    
  • emartin's picture
    emartin 5 weeks 13 hours ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    As someone who is still intact I have to say that if someone were to try to take my foreskin, I would try to kill them.
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 5 weeks 1 day ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    "Pederast" Try to find another intactivist who hasnt heard the line: "but I need my baby's penis to look good." - Or, "so that girls like him in the future." If you can think of something more perverted than that, let me know. Otherwise, the charge of pederasty is absolutely the other way around. And once you've heard it a hundred fucking times, its gets under your skin and it doesnt leave.  To hell with my own story then, you said NOTHING about Chase. Are you defending the State and a psychpathic father that are both trying to amputate a part of a little boy's genitals, even though he's repeatedly said no??? But I'm at a disadvantage though: there's no way this procedure is correct in this day and age. And therefore all the primitive thinking people of the world can point at me and accuse me of being on some highhorse, without ever addressing the content, which at least there was much more of in this essay than in the last one I wrote. Guess eighty percent of the world should start circumcising their infants to prevent them from ending up in a wheelchair. Makes sense. If you're a lunatic. Sorry to hurt your feelings, Mr. Draco. You'll just have to deal with it. And I wont make apologies for fighting against what I believe to be so very, very immoral and outdated.  "Get an education" Fuck you. Get a conscience.  
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 5 weeks 1 day ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    "About the risks of psychological trauma and sexual dysfunction." Minuscule to none at all, unless you're a professional victim - then, like every other fake outrage, it's insane and incredible. The practice came about in parts of the world where there are great deserts and little water - sand under the foreskin isn't what could be called pleasant, and people who waste too much of their precious drinking water on washing sand out of their dick don't live long. Of course, people who leave the sand until it wears a hole in the skin and the person bleeds out. . . they don't live long, either. I'm not saying that it's for everyone in every instance - not at all. . . but to make it so much more a big deal than it is - that's exactly as retarded as "the disgusting, barbaric rape culture" you made up out of your pederast's twisted imagination. I would tell you to get a fucking education. . . but it would be a waste of time - you'll never seek one because you don't want an education - it's easier to bitch about nonsense if you're a know-nothing. What a self-righteous prick. No wonder your babymama doesn't like you.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 2 days ago
    State of Civilization
    Page Paul Hein
    Interesting essay coming from you, Paul. Funny when you mention it. I find myself in "...those twilight years..." (as spoken by the octogenarians of my vintage), but not depressed. In fact, I look at myself as being advantaged -- far beyond the privileges of most. Why? Primarily because I've invested the last third of my life to becoming free, that's why. I'm a sovereign state. And the state of my state is not bad, as states of states go. Whenever I traipse out into my neighboring Occupied State I see that the huge elephant down at the end of the block has not moved, and I have to bike around him (or her -- haven't decided the gender of the beast yet), as usual. I used to think that perhaps I should try to get some of the neighbors together to move the elephant -- a genuine nuisance, since it sits in the way of everything, and constantly must be side-stepped and navigated around -- but I think many of them hesitant to agitate their Senator, who is my good neighbor across the street. He is beholden to the beast, of course. It seems not that long ago that I would have joined the chorus of folks wailing and lamenting over the fact that "our" high school students "...why, they don't even know the name of 'our' senator..." Now I see that as a badge of high intelligence -- especially those who have progressed beyond the Ron Paul phenomenon, and who understand that their "senators" and their "representatives" and their "presidents" are those who maintain the rotation of the earth on its axis, some of whom sit on the Committee for Photosynthesis, etc. I'm a little sad as I sit here typing, because most of those with grit and spirit, who would have challenged my "wild assertion" (of being a sovereign state), have moved on -- left STR for (I presume) "...more fertile pastures..." I see some of them at other sites. Glad to see you hanging in here, Paul, and pounding out your thoughts in your good essays to share with us. Sam
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 5 weeks 2 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    Facebook is evil but social networking can be a highly useful tool. Join tsu, a rapidly growing social network that shares ad revenue with users. Lots of social networks have attempted to compete with facebook's near-monopoly on social media, but they've all failed to gain traction in terms of having enough people on there to be really useful as a social networking tool. What else can possibly overcome facebook's social inertia other than a positive feedback loop that pays people to join, invite their friends, create and share content? It's pseudo-invite-only right now, so basically you need to pick an existing user and input their name when tsu asks who invited you. Whoever you input gets credit for inviting you, which adds up, so if you don't know me and so don't want to give me credit you can pick among any number of alternative users to join up. Here's mine (but if I seem unethical or untrustworthy, don't participate in indirectly funding me by using me as your invite): tsu.co/evanlpierce Here's who invited me (I support paul's goals of world domination gardening and so don't mind helping to indirectly fund him): tsu.co/paulwheaton Here's a charity (I don't know much about this charity but they seem nice and I think it's an option): tsu.co/charitywater I bet you could probably google some other users who you liked more and use them as your invites. It's growing pretty fast. Invite all your friends and together we can obsoletize facebook. Today facebook, tomorrow the state. :)
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 weeks 2 days ago
    State of Civilization
    Page Paul Hein
    Paul, have you armed yourself yet? With something serious, like a battle rifle? It's not the end-all and be-all of course, but it is the best way to ban fear that exists (in my opinion).
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 2 days ago
    Xenophobes Bore Me
    Page Paul Bonneau
    The science of rulership has apparently included that incestuous relationship between psychopaths of state and lunatics of religion from the beginning of recorded history. In fact the earliest records are religious records. The progenitor of "science" was highly religious. What has rather recently been labeled "Stockholm Syndrome" is soundly collectivist, and has apparently been around since the first human beings drew breath. But state media are duty-bound to present it as if it were "discovered" after an incident in 1973, and only affects those who form an allegiance with non-state bandits (around 8% of folks, according to the Wikipedia article). Divide-and-conquer is, indeed, the battle plan for excellent rulership. Good essay, Paul. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 3 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    I agree with Paul -- if you're going to carry, carry. That might mean having to procure your piece on the black market. Good for you. I support "the black market" wherever and whenever I can. I foresee a time in the (I suspect) near future when virtually all markets will become "black". It's called "TEOTMSAWKI" for those cyber-savvy individuals. The reported incident occurred at Florida State (which is doomed anyway). The "lawmakers" should come take a look at our school prior to the big debate. Our students bring guns to school whenever they wish. Of course we're a homeschool family. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 3 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Paul: "...'Our' judges are all impartial, aren't they?..." Don't know how many "judges" you have, Paul. I have One -- Who is Impartial as I understand it. I haven't been "judged" yet as far as I can tell. I should be in a position to tell you more indisputably in 30 years or so. Or so I'm told. I don't know that for certain. I'm a skeptic when it comes to religious and/or "scientific" proclamations. I had a judge once. He diagnosed me as "pathological nonconformist" (as he sentenced me to 30 days in jail for drunk & disorderly, the rat). Later he asked me to be his AA sponsor. I did that until he died several years ago now. We often laughed that I never asked him to retract his sentencing statement -- I think he stood solidly behind it until the end. What comes around, goes around. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 3 days ago Web link Government Deni...
    Thanks, Mark. And I truly appreciate the inspiration you've been to me over the years -- and to the Hale Bobbers (or what's left of 'em since they moved over to "facebook"). Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 weeks 3 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Kleck responds: https://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm Of course one can guess what exposure Kleck's work has in the organs of the Ministry of Propaganda, compared with Hemenway's. The only problem with Kleck's approach, that I can see, is that it is utilitarianism. People should carry guns, if they please, no matter what the Constitutions, or the law, or the research says about it.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 weeks 3 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Laws are for peons, not the ruling class. Oh, sorry, I forgot that this privilege is supposed to buy judicial "impartiality". Our judges are all impartial, aren't they?
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 weeks 3 days ago Web link Government Deni...
    I hear you Sam and agree with you about the whining, but can't really offer any actionable solutions as an alternative.  I can only promote peaceful patience and deliberate preparation for the state's inevitable implosion.  I appreciate your diligence and energy.