Recent comments

  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 19 weeks 5 days ago
    Cop Love
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Mark, here's another textbook example of how 99% of the population react when you attempt to explain Voluntaryism to them.  Nothing but denial and cognitive dissonance:   http://everything-voluntary.com/dreamers-parents-never-sinned    
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 19 weeks 6 days ago
    Cop Love
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    "...Cop Love, I repeat, is a psychological disorder..." "...Imagine the effect it would have, however, if everyone -- or even just *most* people -- spoke up to them this way and refused cooperation..." My mode is to sidestep and avoid confrontation wherever possible. You're not a-gonna change 'em. But each confrontation I allow myself causes grief to me. Even here on the forums. Because I've come to understand that few of us [present company excluded :-)] are willing to back up and assess our own conclusions prior to getting into pissin' matches -- particularly over what I call "libertarian dogma".. My philosophies might be weak. If so, I really need to make that assessment. One thing I do often is, when checking out to pay at Wal Mart or the grocery, ask: "...do you take federal reserve notes here???" Which, often, meets me with a blank look and insolent response. At that point I'll often hold up a "dollar" or a five and say, "this is backed by the most dangerous superstition in town -- nothing else!..." They generally don't want to touch that with the proverbial 10' pole, but it resets the psychological disorder some. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 20 weeks 15 hours ago
    Cop Love
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Imagine the effect it would have, however, if everyone -- or even just *most* people -- spoke up to them this way and refused cooperation.  They can't shoot us all.  They can *try* -- but that's when people start shooting back.
  • PaulTheCabDriver's picture
    PaulTheCabDriver 20 weeks 18 hours ago
    Cop Love
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    While I agree with you guys that the woman in the video was right, one should also point out that, as libertarian attorney Marc Victor is fond of saying, "The roadside is not the place to argue constitutional law." This is prudence. Surrounded by so many "paladins in blue" who are armed to the teeth, she is literally taking her life in her hands by not being cooperative. She is lucky she didn't get shot.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 20 weeks 1 day ago
    Cop Love
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Excellent quote.  But only because it is so sadly true.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 20 weeks 1 day ago
    Cop Love
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    You will obey! Resistance is futile! So sad that so many people have been conditioned to accept their submission to arbitrary authority and justify it with "The police were very polite while they were demanding obedience and threatening violence." 
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 20 weeks 1 day ago
    Cop Love
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    This is right. People cannot handle the cognitive dissonance that arises when they acknowledge the truth about the power structure. The problem is mainly one of self-deception. We see this all the time with the refusal of so many people to see the reality of the government vaccine program. The truth is all around them, but they insist on ignoring or rejecting it.
  • emartin's picture
    emartin 20 weeks 1 day ago
    Cop Love
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    "Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." ~ Michael Rivero
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 21 weeks 1 day ago Page Douglas Herman
    JD in Georgia, Excellent insight JD. 
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 21 weeks 1 day ago Page Douglas Herman
    Thanks Mark,     Loved your picks. Oddly, the songs I played OVER & OVER again back in the day, weren't really the most this or that, only the most fitting (somehow) for the moment. If that makes any sense. Rock On-!  
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 21 weeks 5 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    This is a very good article. One could debate this topic peacefully all day long. One could add at least a dozen more songs to this list. It would be a challenge to add any song that might be pertinent composed after 1998. The point is that music is still a definitive part of our culture. I think it was Joe Perry who said in an interview, "today's music is plugged into some business model algorithm." I cannot be sure of the exact quote but the sentiment is right on. The quest for gold supercedes genuine creativity. Pop music has become way too homogenized. Even in the early days of pop music in the late 50s and early 60s, the music sounded similar but one could at least distinguish one band from another. Of course, state educational systems putting arts and music on the outer margins of the budget are not helping nurture budding musicians either. LONG LIVE ROCK
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 21 weeks 6 days ago
    The Divine Right
    Page Paul Hein
    Larken Rose phrases it thus: "...All mainstream political discussion - all debate about what should be “legal” and “illegal,” who should be put into power, what “national policy” should be, how “government” should handle various issues - all of it is utterly irrational and a complete waste of time, as it is all based upon the false premise that one person can have the right to rule another, that “authority” can even exist. The entire debate about how “authority” should be used, and what “government” should do, is exactly as useful as debating how Santa Claus should handle Christmas. "But it is infinitely more dangerous. "On the bright side, removing that danger – the biggest threat that humanity has ever faced in fact – does not require changing the fundamental nature of man, or converting all hatred to love, or performing any other drastic alteration to the state of the universe. Instead, it requires only that people recognize and then let go of one particular superstition, one irrational lie that almost everyone has been taught to believe. In one sense, most of the world’s problems could be solved overnight if everyone did something akin to giving up the belief in Santa Claus… "…All political discussion rests upon an unquestioned but false assumption, which everyone takes on faith simply because they see and hear everyone else repeating the myth: the notion that there can be such a thing as legitimate 'government'...” ~Larken Rose, “The Most Dangerous Superstition”
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 22 weeks 1 day ago Page Douglas Herman
    Great article, Doug; very enjoyable. There is so much great music from that era. I remember listening to songs on the radio, but played albums at home on the turntable. Too many great ones to pick a true favorite, but Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd, Exodus by Bob Marley and Aqualung by Jethro Tull probably got the most plays on both sides because every song was great on all three.
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 22 weeks 1 day ago Page Douglas Herman
    Thanks for your wonderful words, Alex. Yeah, we were young and dumb and full of cum, and on the run. Or something like that. I had two of the first QMS albums back then and loved their instrumental guitar pieces best. Most of us who lived thru the 60s missed 'em too, Alex. Good Vibrations? NOW that was a cool song, great inits own way. Enjoy yer posts on FB BTW.  Doug
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 22 weeks 2 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    What a cool column, Doug!  :-)  I knew you were Air Force around that time in Texas, and that you saw Hendrix down there.  :-)  I had NO idea your roomies hailed from ZZ Top, the Brooklyn Bridge, and the Ohio Express!  That's almost uncanny coincidence.   My dad was Air Force at that time too (1962-1975) -- would've been stationed here in the northeast by then, though.  And I guarantee he never saw Hendrix.  :-)    I agree the Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth" is one of the enduring tunes of relevancy.  I'll also nominate Quicksilver Messenger Service with "What About Me?" ("Most of what I do believe is against most of your laws!")   I missed the 60s for the most part -- I only remember the 70s, as things were kind of winding down, but even then it was a fun time.  I do doubt we'll ever see anything like that confluence of people, things, talent, and good vibrations again.  
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 23 weeks 4 days ago
    Thinkers vs. Feelers
    Page Mark Davis
    You are definitely one of the thinkers, Sam. As you know, it can be demonstrated that freedom works for those that are able to accept responsibility for their actions, but there's the rub for feelers who like to make endless excuses for their choosing to avoid that responsibility.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 23 weeks 6 days ago
    Thinkers vs. Feelers
    Page Mark Davis
    Oh -- one more thing. I also fervently hope that those of us "libertarians" will come to think rather than feel regarding slight disagreements pertaining to definitions, etc. I can see no reason, ever, for any of us to rag on others of us when the price of freedom is currently so high. There is no reason for STR participants to feel "chased away" by opinions or other dogma -- before their miracle happens. I still remember and often quote your "Be Free" article of many years back: "I suggest that if an individual really wants to be free then they should begin to act free themselves; that is, choose to be free..." Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 23 weeks 6 days ago
    Thinkers vs. Feelers
    Page Mark Davis
    As with most of your articles, Mark, this one caused me to think. Really. No pun intended. For years I remember the drivel, "Trust Your Gut". And, there are times one might have no more to go on than gut feelings about an issue or matter. But even in that instance the thinker tends to use previous evidence and confirmed information and knowledge on which to make her decision. "The odds", etc etc. But you did well in drawing that on out. As I see it, most "political" discussions are 95% "feelings". Same with "libertarian theory". I really do not know how the world will appear once all those psychopaths who make up "government" decide to resign and seek honest work. I do know we've all been totally saturated with the "matrix" that is collectivism. It is almost impossible to genuinely think through exactly how certain issues will resolve themselves once world-wide freedom and liberty are realities. In a sense, you might say that I have faith that freedom is going to work. Well. Better than I could have imagined. I fervently hope to live to see that day. Sam
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 24 weeks 16 hours ago
    Thinkers vs. Feelers
    Page Mark Davis
    You nailed it, Saul. I think there may be more feelers today posing as thinkers than actual thinkers.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 24 weeks 17 hours ago
    Thinkers vs. Feelers
    Page Mark Davis
    Today's SJW's are an extreme case of feelings trumping reason, but most people have fallen into this pattern. The norm for some time has been rationalization taking the place of reason. Politicians and citizens relying upon economists who provide reasons for all sorts of detrimental interventions. Citizens who rely upon authority figures who tell them that everyone must be vaccinated; they think that they are relying upon reason (such as doing their part to maintain herd immunity or abiding by a risk/benefit analysis) while they are really just giving into fearmongering. That is really the bottom line. Are you making your decision or recommendation based on reason or are you merely justifying it based on something which has the semblance of reason? 
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 26 weeks 3 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    Paul-   Only 8 ? C'mon! You can click onto YouTube and find some videos how to disassemble a plugged kitchen drain. You can take a photo of an item, and with an Ebay ap, put that item on Ebay. I know a couple guys who do that with books at the local thrift store.    Smartphones are only as wise as the ones using them. BUT, I rarely see a snowflake reading a book anymore.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 26 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    With you, Jim, it really doesn't matter what you asked me. I'll be embroiled in some foolish word game no matter. With you. A forum generally attracts those who are "with" the general forum content. If ultra-liberals, ultra-neocons, et al., wish to post here I'll "approve" their "right" to so post. Doesn't mean I'll "approve" the content of their post. In the days of the "heavy hitters" at STR I needed have no fear that the ultra's would gain much footage here at STR. Sometimes I merely ignore combativeness and foolishness (foolishness to ME: I'm sure each of them sincerely believe what they post, and do not translate the post into "combative" or "disagreeable"). Early in my libertarian acceptance I did sign into a few controversial forums. But when I discovered I was in "over-my-head" -- that I had virtually NO "fellow travelers" (folks with libertarian leaning) -- the fun began to wear off. I'm not combative by nature. And I'm definitely no dogmatist. That -- long before I identified as anarchist -- probably interfered most with my ability to feel like an effective educator in government ("public" ha ha) schools. Anarchists tend to avoid dogma. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 27 weeks 11 hours ago
    Funny Business
    Page Paul Hein
    Yet another fine piece, Paul. I don't know if you're familiar with TheAnarchistAlternative.info, but what you wrote here is very compatible with it.  I take part in the PBS News Hour forum online, whose whole unstated assumption is that the State rightfully exists; I have a lot of fun puncturing that absurd premise and often refer participants to it if they show signs of peeping over the edge of the statist box.   I'll watch for an opportunity to refer them to your "Funny Business." It introduces the absurdity of compulsion very well.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 27 weeks 21 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I didn't ask you that, Sam, I asked whether or not you'd approve, or think it appropriate, if some open statist were to be allowed to publish articles on STR. The site is (supposedly) not just for you or me or the choir; it is an outreach instrument to promote freedom from government.   So if Hillary Clinton were to become a contributor of articles here, for example, your only comment would be "I have nothing to fear"?   Of course you don't. But that is irrelevant and, I regret to say, pathetic. I have to wonder if you have any idea what STR is for.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 27 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Hein
    http://strike-the-root.com/government-force-of-nature Actually, the fugitive option is not all that bad. A lot of people don't pay any income taxes, and manage to get around or simply ignore many restrictions. One can be over-impressed with the reach of government. After all it is run by idiots who care for nothing but their pay and pensions. In the meantime, I just wait around for the economic collapse, and try to imagine how I and mine would live and survive then. For a little perspective, I advise reading this book. Humans got along for quite a while without the state, it turns out: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Grain-History-Earliest-States/dp/0300182910
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 27 weeks 1 day ago Page Douglas Herman
    Good one Doug. :-) I have to admit, I have found some uses for my smartphone, which I bought after the speaker on my dumb phone finally died. 1) When I am about to dismantle some suspension parts, I can take pictures during the process to help me get it back together without any parts left over. 2) I can look at google maps to see where the traffic jams are. Or not get lost. I can dispense with all those old paper maps, and the reading glasses to decipher the fine print. 3) I've loaded an application that shows how to tie knots. Once a year I need to tie something other than a granny knot, and that app helps a lot. 4) I can tell what time it is, without wearing a watch. Even what day it is! 5) I can tell whether I need my rain coat. 6) I can even make a phone call. 7) I can text people who I'd rather not speak to. 8) Most important of all, I can be surveilled by the state with convenience. Of course it wakes me up at night complaining the battery is low and wants me to plug it in, so I'm not sure it's a net plus for me. I may take it to the rifle range some day, and put it on the 200 yard line. One can become too connected to this world.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 27 weeks 1 day ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "If Jack Phillips was not living under the delusion that the Christian Bible is the Word of God, the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission never would have come about." Not necessarily. Maybe an atheist version of Jack just wouldn't like being told who he has to associate with. At base, these are not disputes about religion, but about association. Forced association. A variety of property rights, as Mark noted. "Based on this, Phillips and all Bible-believing Christians and Jews have the religious right to not only refuse to do business with gay men, they have the religious right to kill gay men." Maybe so. But presumably, they figure refusing to do business, is good enough to keep them in God's good graces; otherwise there would be a lot more dead gays out there. And if they think they have the right to kill, it doesn't matter as long as it remains a thought. You can't reasonably punish anyone for having "bad" thoughts. Hell, there are some bastards out there I'd like to kill too. This old article of mine might be worth a look: http://strike-the-root.com/dehumanizing-people-is-fun
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 27 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Perhaps this may sound a bit flippant, but your question is like saying, "what is the difference between Catholicism and religious tolerance?" Anarchy is a political philosophy. Panarchy is just a notion or framework that (allegedly) makes it easier for diverse political philosophies to co-exist in the same general area. Even calling it a framework is probably overstating it. Even now a liberal and conservative can already live next door to each other without killing each other. Panarchy just makes that easier. If you want to think of Panarchy as just glorified anarchy, I don't mind. Maybe it really is. Hell, if you want to say that Panarchy just allows people to get along, without this being associated with anarchy somehow (a term that carries some baggage after all), or to say this is a sly way of getting ordinary liberals and conservatives to sign onto anarchy, I won't even mind that. Hey, I'm easy! :-) I just think it is a generally useful concept, not something that is of concern only to anarchists.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 27 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Panarchy" redundant? Possibly. But who's to say that redundancy has no utility? We are not talking about math axioms here, but human behavior. Cooper's 4 rules of gun handling are redundant too - which is exactly the point. "Allows" - probably a poor choice of words on my part, that's all. Maybe "facilitates" would be a better word, although I usually roll my eyes when I hear anyone else use it. "Communism and fascism are indeed dangerous superstitions. We fight them – daily." I don't know about that. I don't fight anyone who wants to live in a commune on their own. I fight imposition. I think people too easily slip into opposition mode without defining for themselves exactly what and why they are opposing (I'm referring here to the general public, mostly). As to me being gone from here, it's not any big thing. Just peaks and valleys in the need to communicate. Getting older means realizing you don't need to express an opinion on every little thing. I'll be moving soon too; that will distract me some. I'll probably post here as long as there is a here to post to.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 27 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Bonneau
    4 or five words, my friend: I have nothing to fear. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 27 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Serenity, like Samarami I hope you'll reconsider, and think you're mistaken. But may I take up one line in your post: you wrote of "a belief that there is only ONE way to achieve a goal. one belief. one method to anarchy."   By "anarchy" I presume you mean a society rid of the curse of government, and by "way" or "method" I presume you mean a plan to get there. Correct me if I presume wrongly.   I'm aware of only one such plan, documented here, which a few of us worked out back in 2006. Do you know of some other?  I've watched, but have seen none. There's plenty of activity, but nothing having the form of a plan - with clear objectives, methodology, contingencies etc. But if you've seen one, please name it before you go - if go you must.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 27 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Well said, Sam. Serenity can result, I suppose, from absence of all thought and controversy; but that's a poor way to achieve it.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 27 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    And a cheerful good morning to you too, Alex.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 27 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    The question, Sam, was pretty clear, surely? And pertinent? And you don't have to answer it if you don't want to; a simple "I don't wish to answer that" would have done.   But you wrote 114 words, yet offered no reply. That's a waste of everyone's time.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 27 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Your frustration is definitely understandable. I do hope you'll reconsider. You've been a very good anchor over a moribund period of STR's history. I, too, long for the days when good but often very controversial essays were posted regularly -- often with literally hundreds of comments thereto, sometimes tumultuous, sometimes in agreement. If libertarians are afraid of controversy, they're pretty ineffective voices for us. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 27 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "...Now answer me this: suppose an open, explicit statist - a socialist or fascist, whatever - were to publish an article on STR. Would your tolerance extend to wanting his views to continue to appear? If not, why not? - where is your borderline?..." As of now there are so few participants at STR I doubt if the "splash" would ripple much h2o. I would hope Rob would have the temerity and the maturity to let it go up on the board. Virtually any opinion here in the past has been met quite well by the tzo's, Per Bylunds, et al (including both thee and me). How else to envision a libertarian world unless one has a statist world to hold up as an example of why we continue to hammer away to destroy that most dangerous of superstitions. Rather dull preachin' to the choir, and as of now there isn't even much of a choir left. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 27 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I think it's long since abundantly evident to most -- if not all -- others just whose absence from this site would be most welcome.
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 27 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    i give up. you folks can have your bickering and infighting. no difference between you and liberals.  each one trying to one up the other and each one wanting to ram their beliefs down someone elses throat. little hitlers with a belief that there is only ONE way to achieve a goal. one belief. one method to anarchy. i can see why it is backsliding. i left politics behind a long time ago. i had the belief in anarchy but it is and has become yet another political party. no room in it for ideas. no room for beliefs other then the sanctioned one. each person in it seeks to be the ruler they claim to want to eliminate. enjoy your infighting. i have advised STR i will no longer attempt to be a guest editor. i won't do it even temporary. my time is valuable and i won't waste it on politics which is all this has become. it certainly isn't about striking the root. it isn't about liberty or freedom or live and let live. or even the anarchy of no rulers. no masters. it is simply attacking each other with all sorts of fallacies, personal attacks. unproven inuendos against each other. each one with a knife in hand waiting to carve up anyone who dares be different or disagree. what a waste of time and effort. you can keep it. i won't be back. 
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 27 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Sam, I have indeed wished that Paul Bonneau be banned from writing anything on STR, and I repeat that desire here and now with all the emphasis at my command. I cannot prove that he is a government agent provocateur, but my opinion is that he is. Whether so or not, the effect is the same: as you have yourself observed, if I recall correctly, STR has become a mere shadow of its former self. The owner/editor's abject failure to expel him is a large part of the reason. By his own open admission he has declared that nobody has any rights, so by definition he is not an anarchist. He has also called for compromise with statism by means of panarchy, above as previously; he therefore has no proper place on a site that calls for the abolition of initiated force. It is a disgrace to STR's published mission statement that he is allowed to continue here in good standing.   Tolerance is a fine virtue, as of course is the libertarian principle of "live and let live". Now answer me this: suppose an open, explicit statist - a socialist or fascist, whatever - were to publish an article on STR. Would your tolerance extend to wanting his views to continue to appear? If not, why not? - where is your borderline? Or if so, then you are saying there is no limit, that STR is merely an open forum like all the others, and need strike no root of evil at all.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 27 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, it’s genuinely nice to see you back. I’ve always surmised that you used “Panarchy” with a similar tongue-in-cheek brashness that I use “sovereign state”. It’s not that I’m not serious about personal sovereignty (MY personal sovereignty – here, now, where I’m “at” – which is my responsibility and nobody else’s); but I admit, truth-be-known, that I have interjected “state” to more-or-less bait the Jim’s and the Suverans2’s of the world. But the term “panarchy” is redundant as I see it. The way I think you’re using it could be interchanged with a term such as “individualist sovereignty” without introducing “archy”. “Archy” implies some sort of organized group, with leaders, vice-presidents, enforcers of laws and rules, etc etc. “Rulership”. I found myself experiencing some discomfort with your use of the word “allows” in your statement, “…Panarchy allows personal experience to happen…” Personal freedom and sovereignty do give rise to a number of personal experiences (as you so outlined) – sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But that’s not due to someone’s “allowing”. I do not need any rulers to have personal experiences – I just need to get my head out of my arse. And learn from the negatives as well as the positives. ”… Stop fighting communism, or fascism, or whatever. Let those who want it, have it…” I find myself wanting to presume your meaning is much like Larken Rose in his “The Most Dangerous Superstition: “So, reader, if your beliefs and superstitions – many of which you did not choose for yourself, but merely inherited as unquestioned “hand-me-down” beliefs – matter to you more than truth and justice, then please stop reading now and give this book to someone else. If, on the other hand, you are willing to question some of your long-held, preconceived notions – if doing so might reduce the suffering of others – then read this book. And then give it to someone else”. It’s a writer’s gambit – what I call “good intellectual blackmail” (if any blackmail can be “good”). Mr. Rose would not have written the book if he was sincere in his wish for you to remain steeped in your “beliefs and superstitions” (by ceasing to read his book and handing it off). As Larken illustrates they have unquestionably been the most dangerous of superstitions. Communism and fascism are indeed dangerous superstitions. We fight them – daily. Up and down our streets. Within our families. But we fight without coercion that is concomitant with those “ism’s” and “archy’s” that imply rulership outside ourselves. There’s not a lot we can “do” other than set examples by writing and conversing and being willing to be the odd-man out – show them liberty and freedom by the way we live our lives. Personally and individually. “Panarchy” == intellectual blackmail(???) I’ll address Mr. Davies’ comment here, to you: I, too, have been concerned by your long absence from STR. But I knew the host of STR is not so immature as to listen to Jim’s diatribes against you – and even to “cast you into outer darkness”, as he (Jim) had apparently advocated. My mind is boggled by anybody calling himself or herself “libertarian” engaging in that style of forcible vitriol. I enjoy your essays and your interchange in “comments”. I believe most who contribute here agree. Those who are left out of those who have simply quit the forum to sidestep the venom and the vituperation. My introductory statement stands: I’m glad to see you back, and hope you stay and continue your contributions to STR. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 27 weeks 4 days ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "...one does not have to be religious in order to have a limited tolerance for behavior that one finds rude, disgusting or perverted..." OK, Fellahs, I'm a' comin' out: I'm a gay man. Actually, I have no need to "come out" -- I've been out forever. I'm gay -- except for those times that I'm morose, downcast or grumpy. Incidentally, I'm not "homosexual" in any sense of that agendum. That'd be a bit awkward, since I'm father of 7, grandpa of 26, great-grandpa of many and counting. I have no tolerance for the social engineers to usurp a perfectly adequate descriptor of emotion as "gay". But, somehow, they've made that euphemism for "...rude, disgusting or perverted..." behavior almost a mandate -- you can be charged by the white man with "hate crimes" by even implying that you do not believe that anybody, man or woman, is homosexual... that that is a behavior, nothing more. Oh, me. What a messed up world. Glad I live in a sovereign state. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 27 weeks 4 days ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Absolutely agree. Thiswithout doubt (in my mind, at least), is one segment of ongoing "social engineering", of which all the sex agenda serve valuably. Sex is the unholy sacred cow of social engineering. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 27 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    No, John, my remarks were right on target. As often before, Paul's article set out to distract readers from anarchism, to promote which STR is supposed to exist. From your other post below I see that you may not be familiar with his trick. It's explained in my Panarchy is for Losers.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 27 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thoughtful column, Paul.  Let me raise the question, what is the difference between anarchy and panarchy?  In an anarchic society, there would surely be huge numbers of voluntarily-formed groups, each with its own rules for membership and conduct.  Doesn't this come down to the same thing as panarchy?
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 27 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    You seem to be replying to some other column.  Or perhaps you missed the sentence, "This is quite a bit different than stuffing an entire country into communism. What a lethal mess!"  Sorry, two sentences (I felt I had to add that to keep from provoking a rant about idiots who can't count sentences).
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 27 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    'Just remind them you are not interested in being dragooned into their preferred scheme. This is the ultimate “live and let live.”'   The absurdity of that sentence fairly boggles the mind. Perhaps you'd care to name one fascist or communist country in which dissidents' preferences carried any weight whatever.   Your long and welcome absence from this site had encouraged me to suppose that, the owner having declined to eject you, you had quit on your own. Sorry to see you back.   Any tempted to give "panarchy" a second look should read my Panarchy is for Losers.
  • primalanarchy's picture
    primalanarchy 28 weeks 13 hours ago
    A Cure For Diabetes
    Web link strike
    This is interesting and have heard about it other places. The idea of simulating the metabolic effects of IF (intermintent fasting) by calorie is interesting. Very interesting book: Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung as nephrologist explored the connection with diabeties and kidney issues. It uses fasting including extended fasting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Aw0P7GjHE
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 28 weeks 16 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    A good one, Paul.  Glad I was never quite old enough back in the hippie-era to catch the communalism wave.  :-)  Closest thing was just a lot of friends -- usually only one at a time -- staying in the guest room for long stretches and partying it up.  Lot of pot and beer and great music across the upstairs landing from my room.  :-)
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 28 weeks 17 hours ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    The real problem with this case is a lack of respect for property rights. Cases like this are purposely used by statists to impose and expand state power over private property and thus subjugating property owners resulting in defacto ownership of all property by the state. A business (property) owner should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason whether or not anybody else believes it to be rational or irrational.   I've been an atheist for a long time but I'm still sympathic to the beliefs of Deists, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and other philosophical manifestations of the human mind seeking spiritual guidance and/or fulfillment. I believe that these religious philosophies each have positive and negative aspects with some being more positive overall (Deism, Buddhism, and Christianity) and others more negative overall (Islam and Satanism). The evolution of Christianity is inherently intertwined with the development of Western Civilization that gave us both the modern state and free-markets. I see the glorification of guilt as the biggest inspiration as well as the biggest problem with Christian philosophy as it both causes intense self-reflection and psychological self-mutilation. Anyway, this case is (as Jim points out above) about a political agenda that is targeting primarily property rights, but also the Christian religious beliefs that spawned them and continue to support them.   Also, one does not have to be religious in order to have a limited tolerance for behavior that one finds rude, disgusting or perverted. When these feelings manifest in behavior that results in non-violent actions such as shunning, which is the basis of freedom of association, then there should be no problem (find somebody else to bake your cake); it is only when the reactions become violent and people seek out and punish those they have disdain for that a real problem arises (beating up gays).
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 28 weeks 2 days ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "The root of the problem that has caused this case to arise is not politics or government, but religion."   Silly though his beliefs may be, doesn't Mr Phillips have the right to believe what he wants, and to serve whomever he wants?   There are plenty of bakers. Mullins and Craig could have picked any. I suspect they chose Phillips' so as to pursue a political agenda.   Due respect, but I don't agree this was about religion. It was about whether you and I and Mr Phillips are owned by ourselves respectively, or by the State. Market anarchists acknowledge the self-ownership axiom. SCOTUS disagrees, and so does Mike Pence. Surprise, surprise.