Recent comments

  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 35 weeks 3 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    At this point in the Game of Thrones ("election" bread and circuses), it's a certainty that some puppet will be coronated President. I honestly don't think that "votes" from the plebes will change who "Ascends", but if the popular "vote" ends up favoring Darth Trumpious and Cruella de Clinton somehow miraculously gains the Throne instead, TPTB™ will have some 'splainin' to do. And though I have no intention of participating in the sham and help I'm lend it credence, that would put a big smile on my face
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 3 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    'I resist libertarian "theory".'  Hmm. Don't theory and practice complement each other?   You're in trucking, I recall. So you enjoyed the partial freedom of the open road, the practical pleasure of controlling a big rig as it crossed the Continent with all its beauty.   But I bet you knew something also about the theory of diesel engineering. Not perhaps enough to spell out the equations for the three-dimensional swirl of gases in the combustion chambers, but probably enough to know what to do when a mechanic charged you for changing the spark plugs.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 3 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    I'd hoped that the near-silence on LRC since Walter Block first launched LFT indicated a storm of protest that has made him go quiet. Alas, a new piece out today shows that the opposite is the case. The Libertarian movement is surely in a very sick state.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 4 days ago Page Hogeye Bill
    Defending our culture from the invaders: http://ncc-1776.org/tle2014/tle783-20140810-03.html
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Hein
    I think all the factors mentioned contribute to this drop. I know someone who did not have a license for a few years due to a dispute between two state bureaucracies. He had a lead foot too. Cops would pull him over and he'd just say he didn't have a license. They always let him go. I found this interesting. I've noticed that states are now going with permitless concealed carry, Idaho is the most recent one. I always worried about the notion that we should ask permission to carry, but it appears that gradualism worked for once. It must be becoming increasingly obvious that one does not need permission to defend one's life. Also the world did not come to an end because people carried guns, as the gun prohibitionists predicted it would. Anyway just another trend along the lines you mention.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 35 weeks 4 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    How did you pull that off in "upper northern Kalifornia", Paul? I grew up just outside of Salem, and even back in the '70's and 80's I can't imagine being able to slide that past TPTB™ (high five!).
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 4 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    Actually, a fair percentage of homeschoolers have been motivated to remove their learning-disabled children from the government schools because those schools were serving their needs so poorly. As to evading state control, a lot can be chalked up to bureaucratic incompetence. Also, even if they are competent, the last thing they need is to deal with irate parents; they want an easy life. Oregon has a long tradition of noncompliant homeschooling. We never bothered to register my son. My family is none of their business.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 35 weeks 4 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    "Live and let live" is a basic anarchist concept, as Larken Rose explains to a young couple in a park conversation (video -- somewhat distracting due to the background activity and noise). The way you and/or I see things is the way things are -- for you, and for me. We won't always see the same things in the same way. We haven't both had identical exposure to the millions (billions?) of tiny experiences and studies and observations that make up who we are as individuals. But we obviously do agree upon the principles. I lean toward the practical. I resist libertarian "theory". None of us has ever actually lived in a world where there was no such thing as monopoly "government" (which does not actually exist -- it is an illusion and a superstition -- because only people exist). I proceed from the premise that others are not going to believe and behave the way I think they "otta" believe and behave. It matters not whether "we should" abide by the non-agression principle. Many folks ain't a gonna. I have to deal with that, and yet be free here. Now. Where I'm "at". You might say I have "faith" in liberty and freedom. My kids (soon all over fifty) and grandkids mostly think I'm "far too trusting" of free people. I'm not totally certain exactly how such things as "justice" will play out when people do indeed perpetrate crimes against others of our acquaintance once all government everywhere is scuttled and becomes history. I can only speculate. I'm still gradually pulling myself away from and out of, as Delmar England has described it, "the government-centered way of thinking with which we are indoctrinated from birth". We won't always agree on the definitions and the nuances within the concept of freedom and liberty. That's one of the values of these forums and blogs. I'm not the same person (philosophically -- or physically for that matter, since most of the cells that made me up 20 or 25 years ago have been pooped and pee'd out by now) as I was when we first met in cyber space. I'm still swayed by your easy, jocular style of convincing folks that it would be a good idea to abstain from beans if we ever want to live a life of freedom. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 4 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Okay, Sam, if THAT's how you see rights, we certainly agree. They do NOT come from government in any way, nor from the Constitution which set ours up.   On the contrary, rights are natural, an integral element in human nature. That was the whole point of that superb paragraph by Rothbard, which I quoted in Liberty: Rooted in Rights.   Incidentally the best part of what Trump is saying (one of the very few good bits) is his understanding of Amendment 2. He says it did not grant a right, rather it guaranteed (ha!) that an existing, natural right would be left undisturbed.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 35 weeks 5 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Thanks for the response. Any difference you and I have is mostly definition, or contextual, by nature. My resistance to the term "rights" has to do with my observation that many, if not most, using the term were tying it to the sense of "constitutional rights". My take on use of the term was that, in order to have "rights", there had to be (or was implied to be) a "granter" or "sustainer" of those rights. But that is not necessarily, or always, the context under which it is used. Thus, you might (correctly) retort, I was "...throwing the baby out with the bath h2o..." True. So, having power over nobody other than myself, I can't issue a moratorium toward its use. I will probably continue to use "choice" in its stead -- not that you "should". Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 5 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Hi Sam, thanks for commenting. I think your final para particularly is close to true truth; sadly, Walter seems to have fallen into the trap of supposing that politics can be eliminated by participating, to some degree, in politics. But maybe he's now had second thoughts about LFT; the idea has gone very quiet.   Nothing wrong with applauding someone when he gets something right, but there's no call to support any candidacy at all. As you often say, abstain from beans.   If I may say so, don't be too scared of isms. If two people agree on a belief, there's an ism :-)   Whether you want them or not, though, as a human being you certainly do have rights; integral to your very nature. Understanding them and acknowledging them is what makes a person a libertarian; without that there is no basis for morality or justice or peace or prosperity. The converse is also true; one who denies the reality of rights is not a libertarian. I explored this a couple of years ago in Liberty: Rooted in Rights and it quotes a magnificent paragraph by Murray Rothbard which, rationally, nails this matter down for all and for ever.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 35 weeks 6 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    It has occurred to me, Jim -- more than once -- that the press one receives as a libertarian can (and often will) become his or her downfall. Don't ask, and I'll not attempt to explain or expand on that observation. Except to say that libertarian-ism seems to be very closely related to individual-ism. As you know by now, I have little taste for "ism's". I have no "right" (lots of argumentation in the forums as to the meaning of that) to judge you, your liberty, or your concept of how others' freedom might manifest. Or Walter Block's. I will say this: "Defending The Undefendable" became my libertarian "bible" well before I ever darkened the door of STR. So, I've admired Dr. Block for a long time. Just as I have admired you and your numerous publications -- even tho' we've had minor disagreements (mostly, I think, having to do with definitions). But he seems to have an Achilles heel when he gets himself into the limelight. I began to see that when he so strongly not only endorsed Ron Paul, but implied that anybody NOT so endorsing was "...not truly libertarian..." I voiced the suspicion at the time that he might, deep down in that sub-conscious part of us that few admit exists, have hoped to be appointed vice-wizard-of-the-klan. I don't think I kept a link to the statement(s) he made back at that time; but I have kept the link to a video he made with Jeff Berwick pertaining to Rand Paul's "run" for this or that or some other government office. Walter seems to have been attracted to the "...if-you-can't-lick-'em-you'll-have-to-join-'em..." mentality. I'm relieved that you see around that fallacy, which appears to be one of the delusions that keep allegiance to state strong. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 35 weeks 6 days ago Web link KenK
    Great piece. Really enjoyed your thought process in this. I understand your use of "Rights", given the Constitutional battle over the Bill of rights, but I must agree with Sam regarding "Choice" Choice seems to be, or appears to be the most appropriate selection of terms.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 35 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul's "thought experiment" illustrates the futility of definition games. I began using the term "choices" in lieu of "rights" mostly due to my exposure to the late Delmar England's work, the overall theme of which is based upon this premise: "...most anarchists fail to break free from the government-centered way of thinking with which we are indoctrinated from birth..." It is not unlikely that many (most?) of us will one day be faced with much the same type of scenario Paul illustrates. If (when) total economic collapse occurs, and there is no means by which we and/or most of our neighbors and friends can procure sustenance from any source whatsoever, will I 1) be willing to shoot dead intruders in order to protect and feed my family and myself (until ultimate starvation occurs -- one can only stash so much stuff); 2) share what I (we) have until we all ultimately starve (perhaps engaging in cannibalism toward the macabre end); 3) develop the means by which to teach the starving hordes how to survive in peace, showing them the Truth: that it is (was) that group of psychopaths -- who from antiquity have hid under the brainless and religious abstraction called "state" and/or "government"; and who have mostly made up that phenomenon we like to call "history" -- who have been to blame for our penury. That, without a state to "protect" us, we can and will survive and prosper in harmony with each other. That this pale blue dot in the incomprehensibly vast universe has Somehow been put into place to sustain and nurture us and our progeny.... There are, I'm sure, multiple other choices between 1 and 3, but you get my point. And Paul points up my observation: it is how I think that will determine how I will survive and be an instrument in bringing about peace and anarchy to my world -- the world that revolves around my belly-button. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 36 weeks 13 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    My definition of a "right" is that it is an opinion, nothing more, though it bears two distinct characteristics:  1.) It must be something that at least a significant percentage of society recognizes as such, and; 2.) it must be something which -- if abrogated, violated, or eliminated -- the victim(s) of such might reasonably expect to restore by either peaceful or violent means.   Think about it:  If you were alone in the world, would you have "rights?"  They become non-applicable and superfluous in such a scenario.    I think that pretty much does away pretty handily with the whole "natural rights" argument.  And of course government "rights" (a legal claim to something) is never more than a privilege at best, to begin with anyway.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 36 weeks 21 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    My argument (and Paul's) is not that neighbors shouldn't punish me for defending myself. My argument is that they will. Or they'll die trying. It really doesn't matter what they and/or others "should" or "should not" do. From the article: "...Understand reality. Deal with reality. Prepare for reality. Put the state-friendly memes, that deter and distract you from doing so, out of your head..." 'Nuff said. Sam
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 36 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Bonneau
    When I say I have a "right to life", I mean that I have the right to kill anybody who genuinely threatens to kill me, and that my neighbors should not punish me for doing so.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 36 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Rights" are what you make of them. I believe that I have an inherent "right" to self-defense and the defense of others if necessary, but it's my ~responsibility~ to be prepared and willing to take necessary action. In my mind, I have the "right" to do whatever the hell I please as long as it doesn't trample on someone else's similar "right". As a realist, I'm quite aware that " The Powers-That-Be™" see things a bit differently, so I do my level best to "fly under the radar" and avoid any Waco's or Ruby Ridges.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 36 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I ceased use of the term, "rights" some years ago. I make choices -- some better than others, but they're my choices. I have no rights (I may have "wrongs" :-[). My primary challenge is the development of skills necessary to circumnavigate the gleefully aligned psychopaths -- all of them quite eager to interfere with choices I make. That keeps me busy enough to not expend angst over their machinations. I like your bottom line on "reality": I can be free. Today. Where I'm "at". So can you, if you make that choice. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 36 weeks 6 days ago Web link KenK
    It's always those who have encrypted phones (paid for & maintained by US gov IT people) who bitch the loudest about how us peasants don't "need" communications privacy cuz terrorism, human trafficking, etc.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 37 weeks 13 hours ago
    Conceived in Tyranny
    Web link Westernerd
    Seems to me as if these guys were smelling more than a rat Have been reading about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson along with Taft, three very smelly presidents who completely ignored the constitution all together and did what they wanted any way; just as the House Boy has been doing.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 37 weeks 13 hours ago
    Conceived in Tyranny
    Web link Westernerd
    Seems to me as if these guys were smelling more than a rat Have been reading about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson along with Taft, three very smelly presidents who completely ignored the constitution all together and did what they wanted any way; just as the House Boy has been doing.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 37 weeks 17 hours ago
    Conceived in Tyranny
    Web link Westernerd
    Crusade, glad to see you back here. Sorry you won't get a lot of "play". Seems to me that all the thinkers might have drifted off to sleep. I like this guy, who commented on Trump (a linked video), and ended with the observation: "Reason is never a satisfying explanation of what you see" "Our-Great-Constitution" satisfies that distraction. Get the hoi polloi whining and whimpering and pontificating about that, and questions never need arise that might challenge the validity of that group of psychopaths who act under the guise of "the state". Verbal jujitsu is the backbone in the science of rulership. Sam Sam
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 37 weeks 1 day ago
    Conceived in Tyranny
    Web link Westernerd
    http://www.suijurisforum.com/wtf-t546-20.html#p7628 In the Preamble of their Corporate Charter, known affectionately as the Constitution for the United States of America, the Fleecing Fathers voiced their intent to Form a more perfect Union. At first glance, a literate student might suspect that the authors of the Articles of Incorporation were unschooled in English Grammar. After all, what educated person would add to a superlative, as in more perfect? First impressions, however, are often wrong. Were the Fleecing Fathers unskilled in the art and science of writing? HARDLY! In almost all cases, their expertise in English Grammar far exceeded that of most modern postgraduates. They were true symbol-aeographers; persons skilled in the art and cunning of making legal instruments. When subjected to the Fog Index, a scientific process for determining the complexity of written matter, the Constitution scores at Grade-Level 26. In other words, comprehension requires 26 years of formal academic experience! That’s a high school diploma plus 14 years of graduate and postgraduate education. The authors of the Constitution were indeed experts in the use of language. Where they said "..Form a more perfect Union," that’s exactly what they meant! The toughest riddles to crack and the most amazing magic tricks, are those which focus the "victim’s" attention away from the solution. In the case of the cunning Constitution, its authors pointed to one Union, while creating an entirely different Union; with word-magic [emphasis added]. They formulated a riddle that has begged a solution for over 200 years. Illusionists (liars), however carefully they try to conceal evidence, invariably leave clues by which their delusions can be dissipated. The Fleecing Fathers were no exception to the Rule of Riddles. They referred to three different forms of "Union." In their Preamble they mentioned "a (more perfect) Union," which referred to "this Union," mentioned in Article 1-3, and Article 4-3,4. In addition, they spoke of "the Union" which, where used at Article 1-8-15, refers to the pre-existing Union of Independent States; and where used at Article 2-3: to the new states which would be admitted into the more perfect Union. For over 200 years, since the ambitious Constitution was proposed (in 1787), the appointed experts and "leaders" -- teachers, preachers and politicians -- have trained the less-literate human herd in the false precept that the present "Union" is a continuation of the one which declared Independence from England in 1776. A literal reading of the Constitution proves that IT IS NOT a "continuing government." The present Union, is a fabrication; whose materials are fraud and deceit. [emphasis added] The Preamble of the Constitution acknowledges the Union of States which existed prior to its execution, and implies that the pre-existing Union was perfect. And a "Union," which means one and unique (like "I," "Ego" and "Self") is by definition perfect. An absolute unique thing cannot logically be made more perfect, any more than it can be made more unique. Not one word of the Fleecing Fathers’ Constitution acts directly on that pre-established Union. No word repeals or abolishes that Union, nor expands nor limits its jurisdiction. The Constitution merely plagiarizes its name as a cunning means of exploiting and confiscating the resources of the Several Lawful States; and converting their citizens and inhabitants into human resources for the profit of the Authors and their Posterity. As revealed in their Preamble, they arranged their Union in Order, after and above the sequence of the Union which they usurped. "When is THIS Union not the Union?" Solution: When the Union is the original, lawful Union. http://www.buildfreedom.com/condel1.htm
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 37 weeks 1 day ago
    Conceived in Tyranny
    Web link Westernerd
    Constitutional historian Forrest McDonald makes this observation: "Neither Sam Adams nor John Hancock of Massachusetts nor Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry of Virginia chose to come (Henry did not because, he said, "I smell a rat"; the others offered no excuses)." I smell a rat? Henry complained of the illegality of the Convention in ignoring the explicit instructions of Congress not to scrap the Articles of Confederation. "The Federal Convention ought to have amended the old system," he protested, "for this purpose they were solely delegated: the object of their mission extended to no other consideration." For 23 days in the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry led the opposition against ratification of the Constitution. According to Long, "In the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry protested with vehemence against the proposed new Constitution's lack of sufficient safeguards against governmental abuses due to human weakness among its officials, saying: "Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.” He recognized the danger of establishing power even ostensibly limited power in the hands of men apart from the possibility of recourse to God and Divine Law. This is the essence, indeed the very definition of elitism and tyranny: ruling apart from any reference to the Law of God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWPRtb_DS0E
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 37 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Hein
    Sam: If only everyone would believe this, but the pathocracy which thrives in this nation since 1902 is so entrenched it will never permit us, except in secrecy to thrive in this manner.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 37 weeks 2 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Sam: I enjoyed your response. It seems as if I never stop learning when I read your posts. I did find it interesting in terms that the Michigan Legislature has introduced a bill requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance on themselves for their firearm. There are no ends to justification.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 37 weeks 2 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    Thanks mjackso. I was just curious and wondered about how she was escaping the social/progressive government guidelines.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 37 weeks 2 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    RettaThank you for your reply. I too am a resident of Michigan, but it required both my wife and I to work to survive as a family. I going to college to get a teaching certificate to teach in Special Education. Not many good options to home school a child with special needs, however, the students I worked with were violent students and the State Institutions were their last ditch effort; now they have none because they closed all these schools leaving them in the hands of public school (totally ill equipped to handle these kids). Again, thank you for the information, as I was merely curious. Gock27
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 37 weeks 3 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    From the article: "...Not a single one of those people was ever afforded the right to defend themselves, to defend their life and liberty, against charges that they were “extremists” who posed “an imminent threat” to the United States or its citizens..." Perhaps I've just become old and cynical. If one lives long enough, that can happen, you know. But all of these articles that consist of whimpering and complaining about murderers murdering people leave me cold. Because the whining and wringing of hands makes no progress in ending the slaughter. It will go on, and on, and on. The first order of business to end war is for individual anarchists to have the courage to climb up onto the pulpit of anarchy and to preach the gospel that there is no such thing as "...the United States..." Thus, no "citizens". "Its" citizens simply do not exist. Murderers exist. Psychopathic killers have no qualm about dispatching cowardly drones to murder individuals. The lingua franca is always something about "national-security". That sells the idea to the petulant serfs, who are robbed of their production in order to pay the costs of "war". If you think of yourself as a "citizen" you have already lost the battle. Language matters. What you tell yourself matters dearly. It makes the difference as to whether you are effective as an instrument of peace, or an instrument of war. I believe that to be anarchist requires that one change her entire language and thought process. Once that happens she is in a position to understand that articles such as this -- accurate in fact as they might be -- approach the issue from the point of view that government (a brainless abstraction) might not be such a bad idea after all. If "we" can just see to it (by voting in political elections, "voluntary compliance", etc etc etc) that "good" people are in charge of "us", why, a better life for all will ensue. Slave thinking. Sam
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 38 weeks 18 hours ago Page Paul Hein
    I wonder what the statute of limitations is for admitting that I drove (in the 90's) without a license or insurance for 2.5 yrs (I learned how to operate a vehicle when I was about 9, on farmland near Canterbury before moving to the US). I eventually turned 18 and (at the time) the barriers to licensing dropped. Since I was definitely drinking from the kool-aid of statism at the time I don't think I saw the chinks in the armor of the state. I doubt the young today are eschewing the state. Fast forward to today and my most "rebellious" actions are keeping un-permitted chickens (no one actually inspects your coops, etc. You just pay the fee per chicken per year...why exactly?). I am finally beginning not to care if the rest of the world doesn't change along with me (thanks Sam), I am concerned for my wife and one year old son. I contemplate home schooling in his future and am working on her to get her on board.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 38 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Hein
    Sorry to butt in again, but there is one correction I have to make: parents, or adult caregivers (hopefully loving Mom's and Dad's) have obvious "jurisdiction" over newborn human beings, like it or not. And that "jurisdiction" continues indefinitely -- forever and forever, if all goes well (which, all too often, it does not). My kids (all but 2 of 7 now over 50) have increasing "jurisdiction" over me. The family is the only legitimate governing unit. Love is genuine jurisdiction. Family love. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 38 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Hein
    I've often observed that there is no such thing as "jurisdiction" -- only force of arms. All the appearing before "benches" (a bench in real life is furniture on which to sit your butt), rising, use of sacred utterance ("your-honor"), serve to baptize the unwary into the superstition of jurisdiction. The primary danger is the widespread acceptance on the part of your and my family, friends and neighbors of that superstition. To even imply that one questions "authority" is beyond the pale in the eyes of most. Thus, psychopathic jurisdiction receives validation. However, as Mr. Hein has illustrated, chinks in the armor are appearing. Sam
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 38 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Hein
    The saddest aspect of the armed sheep dogs is that most of them (not all) are just sheep themselves who think that they're "just protecting the flock", often thinking that the largest threat is from within the " flock", rather than recognizing the corrupt, evil-minded "ranchers" (tax farmers) for what they are. A lifetime of programming instills this kind of thinking in both the "sheep" and the "sheep dogs", and these days, the " farmers" have been slanting the hiring criteria to highly favor the "pitbulls" over the gentler "Sheppard" types. And, of course, even the well meaning types are still completely misguided. It took me several years of "detox" and exposure to the liberty movement to shrug off 19 years as a military policeman in the Army, but it can be done.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 38 weeks 1 day ago Page Retta Fontana
    Glock27, Take a look on the search engine of your choice under "unschooling". There are some pretty good articles out there that explain the basic concept and the legalities involved. Mike Jackson
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 38 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Hein
    The overview, Paul, of this nice article is that government (a brainless abstraction when you think about it) is nothing more than a dangerous superstition. And, as fewer and fewer ordinary folks subscribe to the superstition with voluntary compliance, the quicker the final collapse. I'm 81, and banking upon staying alive to witness the collapse. I have no idea how it will unfold. I suspect it will not be painless. Divorcing from any superstition is not a laughing matter, and I never gainsay religionists (although I chide "libertarians" who continue to use reification, such as "the state wants your money", which borders upon religion and superstition toward "the-powers-that-be" [to use their vernacular]). They mostly shrug and ignore me. That does not mean that I recommend going around flipping the bird to dangerously armed psychopaths. Our late friend, Irwin Schiff, learned that lesson the hard way. I'm not certain Irwin actually learned it -- I fear he went to his grave with deep resentments, which in itself is a form of "internal slavery". I always believe a man (or woman -- L-rd have mercy!) with a loaded gun. Sam
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 38 weeks 1 day ago Page Retta Fontana
    Thank you for commenting. Those are good questions. Some U.S. states have much more lenient rules for home education than others. You can find them all at a website called: "Homeschool Legal Defense Fund." Just click on the map for any state you like. California would be among the worst, Michigan would be among the best. At the time, I happened to live in a state with almost no oversight (Michigan.) When I took my children out of public school, they went to a private school for a couple of years. When I took them out of private school, I answered to no one. In fact, when we homeschooled, my daughter wanted to "opt-in" to non-core classes at the public school, which she had the right to do in Michigan. After all, they were still soaking us for the taxes to pay for all of it. She took art and gym classes for a short while, until the oppression she felt was outweighed by the fun. I have heard that in Alaska, the state pays remote homeschoolers to learn at home! Any way you can get a refund of your money from the state has some merit. Having said this, I have to say that no one has any business testing my child to see if she meets their standards, even if they were not morally corrupt, self-serving thieves, which they are. When my child was young, she was my business. I gave birth to her. I put food in her belly and shoes on her feet. I stayed up all night when she was ill. Now she is her own business. They can go fly a kite!
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 38 weeks 1 day ago Page Retta Fontana
    Thanks, Jim! It's great to be back.
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 38 weeks 1 day ago Page Retta Fontana
    Thank you so much! Congrats on the grandbabies! I hope to have some one day.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 38 weeks 2 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    West Virginia not the only state to offer permitless carry. I don't keep track of them anymore, but there are more. However, with the Slave House boy in the White House having signed the "U.N. small trades arm" agreement it will open up tin pot dictators of foreign nations to say what we will or will not have. "Fundamentally Changing of America"
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 38 weeks 2 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    West Virginia not the only state to offer permitless carry. I don't keep track of them anymore, but there are more. However, with the Slave House boy in the White House having signed the "U.N. small trades arm" agreement it will open up tin pot dictators of foreign nations to say what we will or will not have. "Fundamentally Changing of America"
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 38 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Hein
    There are an enormous amount of unpleasant facts even adults don't know. I am currently trying to deal with banks and money that has come down to fiat money, or worthless paper. I see banks as corrupt as government only because government moved in and made them corrupt for their own purposes.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 38 weeks 2 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    I am curious. You don't mention anything regarding a curriculum and all states I am aware of the government intrudes with guidelines and periodic testing to see the child is up to par. I am confused and curious about many things regarding the article of which I co not understand. Also the schools have record of your child and after so many misses they would have sent someone out to check up. I am curious on how you evaded this intrusion of the government. I am one who believes that State Department of Education needs to be removed, it is useless and filled with morally corrupt people. They make up their own rules, laws, regulations and guidelines that have to be followed, so you can, I hope, see my curiosity. You have two admirers here plus one very curious one. Please don't think I am attempting to be disrespectful here, I am just curious in how you managed to evade the government all that time. Respectfuly Glock27a
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 38 weeks 2 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    Chafftez is more than correct, but he leaves out all the other acronyms like IRS, DEA, NSA, FDA,CIA, Secrete Service, US Marshals, TSA and more. All these agencies came into being by the hand of Congress and left with no parameters, no oversight, no guidance, no rules, no regulations on how they are to operate. The are responsible to no one but themselves. They make up their own laws, rules, regulations and guidelines. ".[M]en are so simple, and so subject to present necessities that he who seeks to decieve will always find someone who will allow themselves to be deceived" (Machivelli)
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 38 weeks 3 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    Retta, welcome back! It's been a long wait, but this fantastic article made it worth while.   "With her budding curiosity, her schooling ended and her education began." Superb.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 38 weeks 4 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    This is a good article, Retta. Taking the time, the effort, and the emotional risk to homeschool is truly admirable. I'm due for my 26th grandchild (yeah, that's Twenty-Six, with a capital "T") in September (doubt any of y'all even knew I was expecting :-]). All homeschooled. That is, the ones still in their youth. I've some great-grandchildren (expecting my 6th in June) I don't talk much about. They make me look old :-[. Here are a couple good articles from my homeschool archives: https://mises.org/library/real-education https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/05/gary-north/jail-and-school/ Keep up the good work. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 39 weeks 15 hours ago Page Paul Hein
    I tried going without gov issued ID for a year once as an experiment. I lasted about two months. Unless you are gonna be a panhandler who lives in the park, or a mountain man hermit living  in the wilderness, you just have to have something to do business, and a DL is about the only thing that fits the bill. It's hard, tho not impossible, to do without it, and as kids get out there in the world they discover that unpleasant fact just as I did.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 39 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Hein
    I wish I were as confident in the unlicensed driver hypothesis, but I know what.the deal was for my oldest daughter, and I suspect it generalizes out to the majority of young folks these days. State-acredited driver's "education" classes, which the robbery-tax funded public Incarceration system ~doesn't~ pay for (it's about $300-$400 out of mom and dad's pocket) are now mandatory to even.get a learner's permit. Lots of folks can't.afford this, and so a lot of kids end up putting this off or skipping it altogether, sometimes going straight to a license later in life (my daughter was 20 before she got hers), making do with rides from mom and dad or friends until they absolutely ~have~ to drive.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 39 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Hi Sam:  Thanks for your concern.  As for ceasing the authorship of future STRicles here, and voluntaryist pieces on other sites and venues, absolutely not.  As for abandoning Voluntarism as a personal philosophy, HELL no.  And I may even have some limited conversation about the topic with select people from time to time, here and there, when and if the mood strikes me.  But everything else I wrote stands.  
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 39 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Sam: Free at last, free at last thank Sam for all that.