Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Does a "sovereign state" seek permission (license), to do anything, (which is not a violation of the natural law), from any other STATE?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "Sounds good and reasonable to me. I would probably agree to such a document with the stipulation that at any time one goes afoul of it they would automatically be ejected from the agreement." ~ Glock27 More importantly, as Samarami pointed out, be certain that it contains a "secession clause" whereby any member may peacefully withdraw from membership in the group, at any time, for any reason. Glock27, have you seen this? "The Declaration of Independence was and is, no more and no less, than a document justifying secession."~ Donald Livingston, PhD--Emory University Oh, and would you want to be bound by a Constitution that said something like this, "...ALL TREATIES MADE or WHICH SHALL BE MADE, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND... Supremacy clause. ...all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the “supreme law of the land” and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provisions of a State constitution or law." ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1005 Look closely at Article VI.2 of your Constitution, then take a look at this article about the Bricker Amendment. Here is the the Bricker Amendment in its entirety, if you'd like to read it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Perhaps it is. :^)
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 5 years 42 weeks ago
    Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
    Web link mhstahl
    Thanks, Sam. It took two seconds to write; three and a half decades to compose. I hope it is never complete! Thank you so much for the link-I'd not read that before, fascinating, and very much the same line of thought.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Sounds creepily statist to me. Ugh. The last thing I need is my refrigerator telling me what to do.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I don't buy a lot of this. A lot of condemnation going on based on very shaky speculation of what happened. It wouldn't have made sense for Holmes to get close to the crowd so it's doubtful to me that he did. More Monday morning quarterbacking...
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 5 years 42 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Nice piece, but I don't have any "God-given" rights. I just have rights whether or not there is some genocidal jerkwad sitting in the sky, pining for foreskins and blood-sacrifice and burning offal. Rights just are - they come from self-awareness (and in a broader sense, efficiency: it is trivial to show that in repeated games it is far more efficient to co-operate than to violate... in the same way that truth is 'right' because it's the only long-term strategy that can possibly work). Anyone who wears an official insignia is an enemy of humanity and should be treated as such. Full stop, end of story. Badges, Stars, pips, stripes... all are indicators of the preparedness to impose the whims of political parasites. Thoreau had it right in Civil Disobedience, Book 1 Chapter 5: "The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt."
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Suverans2: "...I presume that that is a typo, Sam, and what you meant was "canon law".. As we've discussed in the past, I'm a classic case of mixed-up schoolmaster: On the one hand I'm technologically challenged (thankfully you patiently showed me enough about html, for instance, to get me by on that score); on the other I'm technologically dependent. I've picked up the sloppy mental habit of depending totally upon "spellcheck", and 3rd grade words elude me -- especially double "L" 's and "N" 's, etc. Sometimes the culprit is typo (although one skill I've retained is that of being a somewhat talented typist); but most often it is abject carelessness. If my computer doesn't "redline" a word as I type along, it stays -- right or wrong. In this case you are right about the word usage, except instead of "typo" it will have to stand as "carelessness", and I thank you for the gentle correction. Wait! Cannon | Define Cannon at Dictionary.com /ˈkænən/ Show Spelled [kan-uhn] Show IPA noun, plural can·nons, (especially collectively) can·non, verb. noun. 1. a mounted gun for firing heavy projectiles; Perhaps when we're on the topic of the white man, cannon law is appropriate! Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 42 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    This stuff only surprises if one assumes cops and military are supposed to protect us. If one assumes they never were for protection, and they are supposed to keep their boot on our necks because that is what the rulers want, then there is nothing to be surprised about. It's expected behavior. Of course then one is left with the question, why put up with some guy's boot on one's neck?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    As always, you are more than welcome, my friend.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I presume that that is a typo, Sam, and what you meant was "canon law". "Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members." Frédéric's "ideas" are definitely not "canon law", that's fer sure. "Once my sons or daughters inherited this property s/he would need to "sign on" for whatever "declaration" had been jointly agreed to, as would the successors of the other signers." ~ Samarami I totally agree! "In any case I would insist upon an 'exit' clause wherein any signer could at any time elect to leave the group without repercussion." ~ Samarami As would I, dear friend, as would I. Neighborhood "defense forces" could and probably would attract these vultures, so you might as well plan your own defense strategy and leave groups out of the equation. ~ Samarami I understand[1]. _________________________________________________________________________ [1] "...the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar "among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see inter-)." ~ Online Etymology Dictionary
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    One more comment at the risk of overindulgence: In this context, I particularly enjoy and belatedly thank you, Suverans2, for your previous references to The Lawful and the Legal, by Frank van Dun. It's easy to get ourselves drawn into the complications of "legality", when the lawful is where we need to be. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    As further clarification, based upon Bastiat's ideas (and they are HIS ideas -- not cannon law) I and a number of my neighbors could (legitimately) form a common defense force to protect our joint properties. Once my sons or daughters inherited this property s/he would need to "sign on" for whatever "declaration" had been jointly agreed to, as would the successors of the other signers. There are two cautions I would advance to this "group defense force": 1) There is always the tendency for individuals in groups to form sociopathic "cliques" which could sully the original common goals of protection from outside incursions. That's why I tend to resist partnerships and corporate agreements whenever practicable. In any case I would insist upon an "exit" clause wherein any signer could at any time elect to leave the group without repercussion. 2) Since the white man surrounding my properties (even though I live in what many deem a predominantly "black" neighborhood, for what that's worth) has naturally and predictably morphed into a militarized police state, I have no illusions they might and probably would descend upon me with swat-like forces beyond the capability of any neighborhood group defense force to hold at bay. They are known to shoot your dog and your kids if one of their "force" deems necessary -- without probable cause. Neighborhood "defense forces" could and probably would attract these vultures, so you might as well plan your own defense strategy and leave groups out of the equation. Just sayin' Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    From "What Is Law?" of Frédéric Bastiat's treatise: Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? I had no input to any "constitution", nor did I participate in a "declaration of independence", as put forth by any group, whether presuming to act in my behalf or for the benefit of others. Any statement or inference to the contrary is illusory. I can find no contradiction in Bastiat's above quoted text. I am a sovereign state. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Sounds good and reasonable to me. I would probably agree to such a document with the stipulation that at any time one goes afoul of it they would automatically be ejected from the agreement. I believe in the defense of myself, my wife, my children, grandchildren and others whos' lives are threatened with great bodily harm or the threat to kill.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    G'day Sam (and Glock27), Was Frédéric Bastiat correct when he made this statement? "If every man has the right [lawful authority] to defend - even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right [lawful authority] to organize [constitute] and support a common force to protect these rights [just claims] constantly. Thus the principle of collective right [lawful authority] - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right [lawful authority]. And the common force that protects this collective right [lawful authority] cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual [without just cause], then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups [without just cause]." ~ Excerpted from The Law by Frédéric Bastiat [Emphasis and bracketed information added] That would be called, I believe, a de jure government, a government of properly delegated authority. Would you say that such agreements are "illusory in nature"? What are your thoughts on this, Sam or Glock27?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Great. Thanks. The more I get the more I learn. I shall take this to heart as it seems to be founded upon sound logical principles. Just remember I am a new seed planted. If you use weed killer on me I shall die and never have the chance to bear fruit. Thanks!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Constitutions, declarations of "independence", Magna Carta type documents have been a dime a dozen in history all the way back to Attila the Hun and before. All are illusory in nature. They were in use long before a relatively recent bank robbery in Sweden gave rise to the term, "Stockholm Syndrome". which describes the conquerors' ability to lull the conquered into a state of servility and adulation toward "Our-Founding-Fathers" and the senators, legislators and presidents of the hour. Unlike earlier Barbaric hordes who raped and murdered all the inhabitants, later kings understood the value of keeping the conquered proletariat in place and producing -- a "tax base". Those kings became Our-Great-Leaders, and the serfs became Our-Great-Nation. Eventually the genius of "democracy" -- allowing certain of the conquered to join the ranks of the conquerors opened the door to vast empires. Then "elections" of sorts, sustaining the illusion of "participatory government". That's why, although a firm believer in "secession" -- or declaring oneself sovereign and free -- I'm not a proponent of emulating the white man's "documents". I don't need a formal declaration to be sovereign. I just need to quit whining and wringing my hands over "our leaders" and their proclivity to quash all the illusory "documents" to achieve their goals of robbing the conquered of all their production. I stay out of their line of fire whenever possible, and never voluntarily "file" any documents on their behalf. I may indeed live long enough to see vast numbers of my compatriots come to enlightenment in regards to their past slavery and to Abstain From Beans. That, my good friends, is "our" only hope. Meanwhile, I can be free. Yes, I can. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 42 weeks ago
    Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
    Web link mhstahl
    mhstahl: "...a conceptual placeholder for incomprehensible behavior..." You did, in 5 or 6 words, what it took my friend Delmar England 24 pages of single-space small type to do. And I think your phrase sez it all! Sam
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 5 years 42 weeks ago
    Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
    Web link mhstahl
    Yet, Sam, despite the apparent lack of human instinct, I'm often told that humans have an amorphous, yet universal, "nature". This "nature" is rhetorically used to explain wars, crime, government-and its supposed "need", economic forces, legal structure, alcoholism, flatulence, and possibly body odor; yet it is really nothing more than a conceptual placeholder for incomprehensible behavior. It is also a way of defraying blame for ugly acts-the species is at fault for war and violence, rather than individual actors. Perhaps, one day the mysticism will no longer be needed or wanted, rather like Zeus is no longer needed to explain lightening?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 42 weeks ago
    Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
    Web link mhstahl
    As I see it, this whole "Chick-fil-A "controversy" falls under what Daily Bell has been calling "dominant social theme" -- but in this case I suspect the result is totally opposite of its intended purpose. Chick-fil-A will enjoy a marvelous expansion of business thanks to media coverage of all this falderal. I, for one, will bike out at least once for lunch; and if I like eating there (even tho it's hardly kosher) I'll patronize them often if they build closer to where I live. I would use the term "ultra covert dominant social theme" when it comes to the whole sexual "orientation" phenomenon -- the idea that a homosexual is no more responsible for his or her sexual "orientation" than I am for my skin color or my genetics (or my sex for that matter). So the white man must enact a bunch of his famous "laws" to make certain everyone within what he claims to be his jurisdiction accepts that ridiculous equality premise without question. As an educator I've watched The-Theory-Of-Evolution (and its equally bizarre "Creationism" counter thesis) used to legitimize agents claiming to be "state" supplant the family as the cogent governing unit. The sexual "orientation" meme has fit nicely (albeit clumsily for anybody with at least 1/3 of a brain) into that agenda. The idea: Your children are now OUR children. You can go back hundreds of years in history to see the development of government ("public" ha ha) schools designed to make that condition unassailable in the minds of the unwashed masses. "Free" education. Yip-eee! But the "theory" leaves out obvious questions: sexuality being a minor one. Human kind is to be portrayed as "the highest form of the animal kingdom". But the human being does not fit into the animal kingdom. The human newborn is unique among living beings in that it is entirely dependent upon adult supervision and care for a number of years. Therefore, human parentage is the only viable governing system. The human being is not born with what "science" has come to identify as "instinct". There are many attempts to attribute certain human reflexes to "instinct", but in the end only animals are shown to have instinct. All human knowledge has to come from learning -- some from education by others, some from empirical experience. Human sexuality also flies in the face of the "theory of evolution". I could go into detail. But other than the male being fitted with a penis and the female with a uterus, there is no direct comparison. And don't go to "public" educators for answers beyond HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy prevention -- they'll show you videos of doggies and horsies "doin' it", and claim to have given you a good sex education when all they've accomplished is the same as all other political action: obfuscation. But it's all for a good cause: to teach you to love your country and to understand that this is a nation of laws and not men. Email me and I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    And, please allow me to introduce you to someone who evidently disagrees with this statement, "At that moment it becomes binding and freedoms are lost in the content." "Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Gilmer (c.1816) Thomas apparently believed that with a de jure government, lawful freedoms remain unabridged. This is so because lawful authority is "delegated" by the author(s), not "ceded[1]". To understand this better, let us take it to a smaller level. If a man, acting as SHERIFF, delegates some of his authority, (which authority, by the way was delegated to him by those choosing to pay for his services), to his DEPUTIES, has he "lost" any of his freedom to act as a SHERIFF? ______________________________________________________ [1] ...2. To relinquish and grant; as, to cede all claims to a disputed right... Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Nothing to forgive, Glock27. "As you are, I once was..." We push with statements, we lead with questions. That being true, here is my first question. You wrote: "When two or more people come together for for a united purpose there will be a formal or informal declaration on purpose. This declaration of purpose will result in some form of common agreement either understood, or written down. At that moment it becomes binding and freedoms are lost in the content." Even assuming that a "formal declaration" is "some form of common agreement", whom does it become "binding" on, the signatories[1], or their posterity? If you would prefer to discuss this privately, that is fine with me. ______________________________________________________ [1] signatory noun (plural) -ries a person who has signed a document such as a treaty or contract or an organization, state, etc, on whose behalf such a document has been signed
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    I certainly hope this does not happen because libertarians are not the only ones whom will be at risk here, matter of fact the whole nation will be at risk. I am thankful that the NRA has persisted over the past 20 years against the United Nations and the Arms Trade Treaty which is currently stalled out and will not be put before the nations to vote on. Hey!!!!!! for the NRA. ( I am a member) and I carry concealed. Browne says Direct action is difficult, but I am thankful for those who have choosen Direct Action rather than setting back on their fat butts and letting things happen. Freedom is not free.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Forgive me gentelmen, but I believe this is nothing more than poppy cock I agree with the statement and also disagree with the statement. When two or more people come together for for a united purpose there will be a formal or informal declaration on purpose. This declaration of purpose will result in some form of common agreement either understood, or written down. At that moment it becomes binding and freedoms are lost in the content. Because like it or not you are bound to the document unless you perfer to be childish about it and take your toys home and not play, all of which you may not have a legal obligation to do. Now the Declaration of Independance was written a long time ago; and agreeably we could or should concede that it was or is a binding document on those individuals at that time and at the expiration of each individual of that agreement would at some point become null and void. Since it has not become null and void, but has become a tradition and cultural investment it seems to bind all generations to that contract--it has evolved into becoming an Axiom. Fir a hand full of people to attempt to divest this document seems to be futile as it persists in being engraved on the conscious of every American citizen. The same reasoning applies to the Constitution. Now, technically the Constitution should protect American Citizens. If it were given a true chance, rather than legislators doing everything possible to subvert and circumvent the Constitution it just might perform as it was written. The legislators, over time, have just gone from hateful to down right nasty when it comes to the Constitution. I am a nubie here and am still learning. So if you want to criticize my comments you are perfectly clear to do so, but at least do it with decency and respect. Hurting my feelings will achieve no end by violating the fundamental creed of libertarianism, anarchism and voluntarism. I believe the Constitution can perform perfectly. It is not the constitution that is the problem, it is the people who circumvent the Constitution, judges who force meaning out of it where it takes a queer style of logic to do so like the recent ruling on obama care. The Constitution was not designed as a Progressive Socialistic Marksest doctrine. I am more than happy to take a Personal Message of education, so if you feel so inclined to do so I would be delighted to hear from you and give serious considerations as to where you believe that i am wrong
  • Cannon's picture
    Cannon 5 years 42 weeks ago
    Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
    Web link mhstahl
    Henson, of course, has full rights to boycot doing business with Chick-fil-A for *ANY* reason, including the one given. And those who dislike Henson's policy have the right to boycot Henson. Unfortunate that rather than accept that this is how it is supposed to work in a free market, conservatives merely opt to whine about Henson's reasons. Chick-fil-A prefers not accepting gay people. Henson prefers not accepting people who dont accept gay people. So everyone should stop complaining about the other's reasons and vote with their wallet. Until then everyone is hypocritical.
  • Cannon's picture
    Cannon 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Absolutely. If guns should be kept out of the hands of the "mentally ill", all that is needed is to redefine what is "mentally ill". Already in psychiatric circles there are attempts to make opposition to authority a "disorder". As a matter of fact, they call it "Oppositional Defiant Disorder". It only takes a few minor steps to categorize anti-statists under that moniker. And we've already seen that in government circles there was an attempt to classify libertarians as potential terrorists.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I have concluded that the safest and surest "Declaration of Independence/Formal Notice of Secession" is one loosely based on the formal notice of secession used by the original thirteen colonies, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America[1]. I came to this conclusion because in order for the United States, (and it's subsidiary governments), to not "legally recognize" this formal notice of secession it would simultaneously be refusing to "legally recognize" its own formal notice of secession, which would be tantamount[2] to denying its own legal existence. ________________________________________________________________________________ [1] "The Declaration of Independence was and is, no more and no less, than a document justifying secession."~ Donald Livingston, PhD--Emory University [2] Equivalent in value, signification, or effect. ~ Webster's 1913 Dictionary "Silence is sometimes tantamount to consent." ~ Noah Webster (c.1828)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Let not any be alarmed, therefore, at the promulgation of the foregoing doctrine. There are many changes yet to be passed through before it can begin to exercise much influence. Probably a long time will elapse before the right to ignore the state will be generally admitted, even in theory. It will be still longer before it receives legislative recognition. And even then there will be plenty of checks upon the premature exercise of it. A sharp experience will sufficiently instruct those who may too soon abandon legal protection. While, in the majority of men, there is such a love of tried arrangements and so great a dread of experiments that they will probably not act upon this right until long after it is safe to do so." ~ Excerpted from The Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "But why wait for your STATE to secede?" ~ Excerpted from the YouTube I Hereby Secede by Roger Young "Your STATE", unless its sole function is to protect its members' natural rights, (amongst which are the rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property, together with the right to defend and protect them), is no better than it's franchisor, the corporation known as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Since we all know that "your STATE" is not restricted to its one proper duty, one should not "wait" for it to secede, one should, IMO, secede from it coevally. "I...do solemnly publish and declare, this Man is, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent, that he is Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States, and any and all States under the authority of the United States, and that all political connection between him and the aforementioned States, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent Man, I have full Power to Arm and Protect Myself, my Loved Ones, and my justly acquired Possessions, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Trade, Possess Land, Travel Freely and to do all other Acts and Things which Free and Independent Men may of right do." ~ Excerpted from my Declaration of Independence/Notice of Secession
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I hope nobody missed this video, embedded in the article. It's worth the few minutes to watch. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 42 weeks ago
    The Gun In The Room
    Web link Robert Fredericks
    When I click the link I get some "lost liberty cafe" site not related to the topic. I'm presuming this refers to Stefan Molyneux's 2006 piece by the same name. In it, Stefan subtly refers to reification, except he uses the term "euphemisms". I think it's quite effective the way Stefan responds to a poster who was favoring "the government" by substituting the word "rape" wherever the poster used "government". "Terrocrat" is also an excellent substitution where one wishes to convey the real meaning and "...to ward off the continual oily drizzle of words and phrases designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence..." Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    This should be a surprise to no one. Laws don't exist for the ruling class and its minions.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    When everything is made illegal, then nothing is illegal.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link strike
    One of my favorite Thoreau quotes.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link strike
    This says so much in just a single sentence. Thoreau is such a pleasure to read and he's so timeless.
  • calinb's picture
    calinb 5 years 42 weeks ago
    Very Special People
    Page Jim Davies
    Would you be willing to ignore the title of Paul's essay and merely evaluate its content? Even if libertarians and anarchists are special, Paul's point is they would promote liberty more effectively if they didn't think of themselves as the enlightened elite. I don't see that you are disagreeing with the examples and implications of the behaviors that Paul cited. Your disagreement seems to stem from your interpretation of the title of Paul's essay. From his very first paragraph, "Libertarians (and anarchists) like to think of themselves as enlightened beings" Paul is not actually discussing whether or not liberty-minded people ARE special. Rather, he is discussing their actions, which are often unproductive and consistent with FEELING special.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago
    The Gun In The Room
    Web link Robert Fredericks
    "The first thing I want you to realize is that the primary tool or WEAPON terrocrats use to subjugate, control, and dominate their victims is WORDS. By "terrocrat" I mean "coercive political agent" or "terrorist bureaucrat." A terrocrat is always an individual human being. Please think about this issue. How often has a terrocrat stuck a gun in your face and said, "Pay your taxes or else?" Compare this to the number of times terrocrats have sent you pieces of paper with words on them, telling you what to do or what not to do -- and what penalties you may be subjected to, if you don't obey? … I don't care how much thought you have to put into this, but it's absolutely vital that you understand that the primary means terrocrats use to subjugate, control, and dominate their victims is words. " ~ Frederick Mann
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 42 weeks ago Web link strike
    G'day strike, You might like the "sermons" of Santos Bonacci even more.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 43 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Thank you, Serenity.
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 5 years 43 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    In all honesty i have no idea as i don't have a google account either. You could try this page as it has the authors email address on it and email him directly. http://www.blogger.com/profile/15149639674145482725
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 43 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    G'day Serenity, How does one go about leaving a comment of the enlightened rogue's blog if one does not have, or want, a google account? Thank you.
  • Wani1's picture
    Wani1 5 years 43 weeks ago Web link strike
    Outstanding! I just sent the link to about 25 friends, half of whom will surely & judgmentally reply that the guy is a "radical hippie". Greatly appreciate this find.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 43 weeks ago
    Statist or Anarchist?
    Web link strike
    Anarchist means [one] without rulers, but it does not mean with rules, thus anarchists do not necessarily adhere to the non-aggression principle (N.A.P.). "The word [anarchist] got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution[1]", which included Maximilien Robespierre's and the Jacobins' "reign of terror', 'during which between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed[2]". This is what tens, or hundreds, of millions of people visualize when the word "anarchy" or "anarchist" is used. As a result, this is the image most people picture in their minds when they hear/read the word anarchy. But we've had this discussion before, here at STR, and you, who call yourselves "anarchists", believe that you are going to change everyone's mental image of that word to a positive one. Good luck! __________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Online Etymology Dictionary [2] French Revolution, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 43 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    I have no idea what you just said, and I am not clearly convinced you even know. Wow. Could this smack of Trollism? Just askin.
  • Wani1's picture
    Wani1 5 years 43 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    I would point to the Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures. Even fairly recently, said experiment being repeated, results yielded 61-66% compliance, much as in the 1960s. I would also point to the Wikileaks videos we all shuddered to see, wherein our troops complied much the same, often with "extreme prejudice". As the widow of two veterans from the Korea/Vietnam era, I am well aware of military training practices, and how much is made of following orders. The general public doesn't know the half of it. But don't we hope to have a military that is strong, that will stand in the face of 'nightmares from hell' and perform much like the ancient Samurai, whose mindset was to "awaken each day as though already dead"? A man with such a mindset might seem impossible to defend against, given he has no fear of death any longer, but defends what he has chosen to defend. As for civilians in government 'offices', especially those who have spent millions to obtain said offices, can we imagine a more ignoble lot? In their cases, they owe their contributors, in varying degrees, according to the amount of 'contribution', and that grows daily via "soft money", Super-PACS, et al. If we are not amongst those contributors, what, in their minds, do they owe us? Nothing? As for the lower-ranking hirelings, to whom do they owe allegiance? Those who provided them their jobs & benefits, or we who merely hope they'll "do the right thing". We neglect to consider what THEIR "right thing" is...likely, it is not OUR concept of right. HOW did we arrive at this paradox? After over 50 years of diligent study, I haven't nailed that answer down yet. "Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.~ GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
  • Wani1's picture
    Wani1 5 years 43 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Having been born in the Blue Ridge mountains of NC, I learned, as did we all, by age six to fire a rifle, and by age 8 or so to fire it well. Our skills sustained life, we never went hungry, nor did we know fear, for we were never taught fear. Fear has been used for at least the past 60 years to reshape America into something I struggle to recognize. Had this killer used fire to destroy life, no one would have screamed for a ban on matches. Few fear matches. Because of fear, America has increasingly traded liberty for false security. As Franklin said, such deserve neither liberty nor security and shall have neither. The answer to gun bans IS 1776. NO fear. As for felons, they will obtain whatever they wish to obtain; all the more reason for a well-armed citizenry. I would point to Switzerland as example FOR mandatory gun ownership and training. My brother's friend made a statement that is quite telling: "In our desire to have government become our benefactor and sustainer, we have allowed it to become our taskmaster and overlord. As a result, we have become little more than well-fed, well-entertained slaves to the state. Freedom, as envisioned by our forefathers, is gone." ~ Chuck Baldwin Gone? Not completely. Not here.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 43 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    I am estatic to see this as I am a second amendment freek (despite the fact that I should not have to be). I whole heartedly agree with this; with one exception, which no one here will like, and that is to continue the principle that fellons ,and mentally disturbed persons should not have the same access. I know! They should have the right also to defend themselves, but when your are being attacked by an armed felon you could possibly see the need to restrict, in a limited manner, who can possess a firearm; despite the fact that most felons already possess or know how to obtain a firearm without legal consent. I am going to catch hell for this, but it is the way I believe. And yes. On occassions, legally armed citizens have gone nuts also but dosen't common sense need to be played out in this arena? Just my thoughts. I don't think anyone can honestly justify why a convicted felon should have a right to carry a firearm.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 43 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Nice to know. Fun site to explore, especially for preppers and the coming storm.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 43 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Definitely handy. Thanks.