Recent comments

  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Re: Until recently, it was nearly impossible to be an anarchist. Nope. See: The Art of Not being Governed and the Vikings in Iceland amongst others (e.g. The Current Wenchou Province that has promulgated itself all over the world) Re: Now, the missing element is here: an anonymous currency. Nope. The change in my pocket and gold and silver coins and even the paper are all anonymous and have been for centuries. Re: Frank Chodorov correctly pointed out that the I.R.S. must be defeated, before there can be freedom. Nope. They can be ignored. (Secretly of course IF YOU ARE SMART) Re: As long as the tyrants can confiscate your wealth at gunpoint, then they are secure. Until they run out of--WILLING--victims (such as those who STILL vote)... Re: Individual anarchy, such as that of Sam, is doable now. Got one right!!
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 18 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    From an anecdotal point of view, my experiances over these drawn out years there seems to be a greater amount of black on black violance. The main stream (if they exist anymore) media idiots never suggest or hint a color when crimes of violence are reported. In many cases you can tell by the names of the individuals assaulted or assaulted by. When the event first appeared in the news I did not give it much thought. Eventually, though, I had to go with Trevon. I went with him because as a CCW person I recognize the intense responsibility you are burdened with when you carry. Zimmerman--to me--became the idiot when he hounded Trevon and escalated the situation. I don't believe, however, that Zimmerman really wanted to kill someone but that is exactly the direction [he] took the incident. As a person who carrys a gun shooting is the last thing, the very last thing you want to do. I think Zimmerman put himself into a situation he could not control and he believed he was forced to shoot. In fact, he was forced to shoot because he created the situation that ultimately require shooting. Zimmerman should have had alternatives to the use of his firearm, something many people who carry firearms do not consider. That would be pepper spray, stun gun, taser if legal in the persons geographic peremiters and back up if possible. From my point-of-view LEO's are the only individuals who carry firearms that have a moral and ethical obligation to persue and individual who committed a crime. Zimmerman was a "Communit Watchman" with no duty to persue. I have not followed this event closely because it does not interest me, so, I probably know next to nothing about what has, is and will happen, its just my two cents because I carry and understand the responsibility I have in carrying.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "I can confidently point towards a nonviolent society that you’re *intimately aware of* – YOU. I am guessing that you do not use violence directly to achieve your aims. It seems likely to me that you did not hold your employer hostage until you got your job; I also doubt that you keep your spouse locked in the basement, or that you threaten to shoot your “friends” if they do not join you on the dance floor. In other words, you are the perfect example of a stateless society. All of your personal relationships are voluntary, and do not involve the use of force. *You are an anarchic microcosm* – to see how a stateless society works, all you have to do is look in the mirror." LOL... "When people dismiss the possibility of anarchy out of hand by saying, “Oh, but how would roads be provided?” what they are really saying is that they support war, genocide, tax enslavement and the incarceration and rape of the innocent, because they themselves cannot imagine how roads might be provided in the absence of violence. “People should be murdered, raped and imprisoned because I am concerned that the roads I use might be slightly less convenient.” Can anyone look at the moral horror of this statement without feeling a bottomless and existential nausea? Now, imagine that the reality of the situation is that roads will be provided far more efficiently and productively in a stateless society? If that is the case, then the practical considerations turn out to be the complete opposite of the truth – that we are accepting murder, genocide and rape for the sake of bad roads, rather than good roads!" A couple of passages from "Practical Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux. [Question: How many *Me* and YOU's are out there? I would say more than can be or ever need to be counted But the point is? Clearly some who ask for proof of a stateless society--focus on the "We" and completely MISS (and perhaps blank out) the self evident criteria of what is one's own authentically anarchic identity]. References: 1. There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. zerogov.com/?p=2334 2. Practical_Anarchy freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf 3. [Thanks] Samarami, posted on July 10, 2012: "I'm in total agreement. "We" will never reform or change political action, politicians, (predators and sociopaths all), or monopoly states. They're here, they're stayin', and we in all our passion aren't going to change that. Paul's detractor states..."
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 5 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Don't you love the inherent dishonesty of statists? Case in point, the deliberate changing of methodology to fit their predetermined conclusions. Anarachist: Let me enumerate the many many logical flaws with the theory of statism and the logical and moral coherence of liberty. For one, see how the most basic understanding of how economics works proves that what we know about monopoly is a severe blow to the state, and a cause for confidence that market provision of formally monopolized-services will increase their quality and reduce their cost? Statist: Though I can find no flaws in your theory (an admission almost never given outright; their engaging on this level indicates their acceptance of theory methodology), you can't provide me any empirical evidence of a stateless society (empirical positivist methodology) and so I won't believe you until you can show me. But you can't be given freedom to try because it will fail horribly (back to theory methodology). If they were honestly advocating empirical positivism, they could only respond with "we'll have to see if it works". But no, they're already convinced it won't/can't which is "knowledge" they can only have derived through theory (flawed theory at that).
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 5 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Until recently, it was nearly impossible to be an anarchist. Now, the missing element is here: an anonymous currency. Frank Chodorov correctly pointed out that the I.R.S. must be defeated, before there can be freedom. As long as the tyrants can confiscate your wealth at gunpoint, then they are secure. Individual anarchy, such as that of Sam, is doable now. Silver Shire hard-money cards. Also, Bitcoin is untraceable and anonymous, as long as you avoid Mt.Gox., which may seize your money, without government I.D. (game over). Intersango is apparently honest. There is a new, encrypted cash-in-the-mail service: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82983.0 Other cash services are found at SilkRoad and BlackMarketReloaded.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I'm in total agreement. "We" will never reform or change political action, politicians, (predators and sociopaths all), or monopoly states. They're here, they're stayin', and we in all our passion aren't going to change that. Paul's detractor states: "...“My longstanding challenge to create a society larger than a commune or a small town that functions well without any government is still open. Create one, and you'll shut me up quick. Until then, I'm going to refer to your notions as ‘unproven theories’ at best, and ‘utter fantasies doomed to a horrible outcome’ at worst.”..." I discovered anarchy DOES work. For me. I can't "make" anarchy work for you, or for him, or Ken, or Paul. Anybody who thinks of anarchy in terms of "creating a society" cannot be convinced, and I don't have time to mess with them. They're unmitigable. I have declared myself a sovereign state. Wanta argue with me about that? Be my guest. I've fielded every argument at least once, and suspect I've never convinced a single naysayer. Good. I have no need to convince anyone that anarchy works. In fact to attempt to do so falls into an inverse of the category attributed to Thomas Pynchon: "If they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." The predators and parasites who make up "Our-Great-Nation" will be around as long as there are "voters" and naysayers who need some substantive "proof" that "anarchy works". As Ken comments below, there are and probably will always be individuals in every crowd who simply can't grasp individual responsibility or individual cooperation in a free market "system" (even the word "system" implies leaders and followers to most people using the term). The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam Paul's detractor laments:
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    Roubini has another interview wherein he says the banksters and crony capitalists will never change until more than a few of the worst offenders are jailed or even hanged. I'd settle for just letting them go bust when they fuck up and then letting the aggrieved sue them for damages. http://www.businessinsider.com/roubini-break-up-banks-greedy-bankers-2012-7
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I have a suspicion that once population density hits a certain number "x" that a proto-state naturally forms. This would be one way to prove my theory valid or not.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Boy, wouldn't that be nice: an anarchist haven to show the world how freedom really works. And hopefully it wouldn't start out as a contradiction ala the "Free-State" project. I am amused by statists who claim to require some kind of empirical data (apparently because logic, reason and sound moral principles don't cut it) to "prove" that anarchy isn't "doomed to a horrible outcome." I would love for statists to show me a country, town or even small commune that isn't doomed to a horrible outcome because it has a monopoly on the use of force. We have examples galore of thefailure of statism. That statism will ever work by "reforming it" or changing politicians is pure fantasy. Therefore, even though the existing system has proven to not "function well" we must continue using this failed system because we are not allowed to try something that may work well, yet as you point out, we are not allowed too. So I would respond, show me a state that is working right now.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Thanks, Serenity! I stand in awe of this gentleman's overview when you consider he wrote at the outset of printed matter and had only his own resources with which to work. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago
    Very Special People
    Page Jim Davies
    Good essay, Jim. I'm presuming your supposed disagreement with Paul Bonneau's essay is more couch humor than specific disparity. If there were difference between the two of you, it would be word usage. You each present from a different side of the room, but end up together in spirit. And you both have a knack of inspiring the troops. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I appreciate your linking to this article, Atlas. Knapp's last paragraph: "...There is no smaller form of government than anarchy, and anarchy worked when it came to immigration. It would still be working today if not for the fact that an unrestrained government (and no government allows itself to be restrained forever) grows into every niche, and strangles every outgrowth, of human activity..." I am a sovereign state. When I first began to make this declaration I think I did it rather tongue-in-cheek to get a rise from Knapp's "No-Nothings". But as I fielded the many rebuttals and arguments I came to believe what I was saying. I am, truly, a sovereign state. I have defendable borders, a governance with laws. In order to compare "illegal" immigration with trespassing one must first accept agents of civil government as serving socially useful purposes and deserving of "our" support. If you can swallow that you are still basking in the instilled beliefs of your government ("public" ha ha) schooling days. Only then can you recognize any legitimacy in the fictitious lines in the sand referred to as "borders". And only then can you ignore predators of state as the prime-ultimate trespassers. Sam
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Can the Mexicans who installed your sprinkler system REALLY instill as much fear into your heart as the NSA, IRS and FBI? ...The take home message here is that America is already a gigantic economic and political toilet. Whether it is worth your time to keep immigrants from falling into this toilet is up to you. I, for one, welcome the *unpropagandized masses* from abroad, who work hard and don’t try to tell me how much I should love a government that threatens to murder me when I travel. Plus, *I value* the ability to leave this country as much or more than trying to keep out people who happen to speak Spanish. Put differently, my advice to you [Dearest Reader], the next time you hear some hyperventilating, flag waving jackass going on and on about how we need to keep the "illegals" out of America (and all the other variations of "We"-ism), is to congratulate him for his sensitive humanitarian impulse to keep those innocent foreigners from falling into the reeking hell hole we call "America." How Could Illegal Immigration Make America Any Worse Than It Already Is? http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli49.1.html
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Ahem...Oh my my my.... To hear the Know-Nothings complain, you’d think that the US has a history of strict border control and that the federal government has only recently begun to lie down on the job. Nothing could be further from the truth. For close to a century, the federal government exerted precisely zero control over immigration. People decided where they wanted to be and then they went there, with no need to request permission. It was a quintessentially anarchic process — and it worked. Westward expansion and industrialization over the course of only a couple of generations would have been impossible without an unrestrained flow of immigrant labor. America’s resident population couldn’t breed fast enough to transform itself from an agrarian society to an industrial society... Read on Dear Reader, Immigration: Anarchy Worked http://c4ss.org/content/2337
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Moved to reply post.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    By this logic. . . we should eliminate all trespassing laws as well. . . I'd be willing to bet any amount of money I haven't got that most (bordering on all) people clamoring for eliminating immigration laws wouldn't even think about allowing just any yahoo to walk into their house or set up a tent in their back yard - but that's their expectation on a national level. The purpose of immigration laws are to provide a vetting process. . . whether or not they've been hijacked for more nefarious purposes is irrelevant. The US is the property of all citizens, nominally. . . and most of us want to know who is coming for dinner - If for no other reason than to make sure there's enough potato salad to go around. Aside from that, it's nice to have some way of knowing whether or not he's some freakshow who'll steal the silver, defecate in the cole slaw, chop down the peach tree, or simply decide never to leave. Before one makes demands which affect everyone, perhaps they should try "open immigration" on a personal level - remove the locks from their doors and windows, take down the fence around their back yard, leave the keys in their unlocked car. . . and see how that works first. If they don't get beaten, robbed, and/or overrun and/or worse. . . then we can discuss doing so as a nation. Until then - let's make sure we know who's coming over. And bust the Trespassers.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    "...What could they possibly be expecting to find?..." It's embarrassing to be reminded several times per day of a passage attributed to -- Thomas Pynchon: "If they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." When you think through basic realities, the correct question becomes so painfully evident. Here are a few realities: 1. Predators of government in the guise of TSA agents are at every US airport. 2. The vultures are clumsy and dumb and naive and almost every other insulting descriptor you can name, but they are there. 3. Los Zopilotes all. 4. These realities will not change as long as masses of sheep go to airports to fly. So now that we can categorize and examine some realities, it is now time to ask the right question: Why are you still flying? Now. That wasn't so hard, was it? In fact, using the same logical reality search would indeed put an end to predatory state altogether if all sheep would revert back to human beings and Abstain From Beans. "Yes, you can" Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago
    Countrywide Cronyism
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Cato has become (perhaps always was) a little old lady of state media: "...Regardless of whether any of this was technically illegal, it’s another example of the privileged life enjoyed by the Beltway class..." Is this supposed to be a "new discovery"? Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Thanks for the replies Samarami & Glock27. Glock27, you wrote: "My concern is how to dissolve what has evolved through the greed and lust for power." "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. (Attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr) With all due respect, as individuals, the only thing that we have the lawful authority to "dissolve", is our membership, our affiliation with it. Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1351 Most countries have laws that punish persons[sic] who secede or attempt to secede. The United States has no specific law on secession... ~ West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. [Emphasis added]
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Nicely stated Suverans2. No argument on my part. My concern is how to dissolve what has evolved through the greed and lust for power. We have noted recently that the SCOTUS cares not to defend the people or even listen to them, but perfer to legislate law from the bench. Now we have three law makers and one set is not even elected by the people; not only do we have a legislative body against the concepts presented but there is the U.N. now wanting to get into the action of legislating for the U.S. This country is basically F*%$ing doomed. People can prattel on about private property. freedoms, rights and quote historical figures and to what end? Where is the means? I desperately want a solution to get out of this mess everyone is trapped into. I have been a prepper for years and alll for no good and hopeful purpose? Who else is frustrated and depressed over the lack of liberty and the persuit of happiness?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    I'm pleased to report, Suverans2, that I live in such a nation. It was inspiration from your quoted passage of Bastiat's "The Law" that my secession took place and I became sovereign. I didn't have time to wait around for you guys to elect a Ron Paul or a Peter Schiff to your district of collectivism -- my clock's running at top speed. Thanks for putting it up on the board along with the link to The Law. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    My suggestion: Keep this in mind while reading Brin's article. Boétie's understanding almost 500 years ago is as true today for an anarchist. "...He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you..." On the other hand, just because you're paranoid does not mean they ain't out to get you. Sam
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Someone show this to Lindsey Graham. It will accomplish 2 positives in that Lindsey hates libertarians so much that he'll murder West and then Graham will get the needle on death row. WE WIN!
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 5 years 19 weeks ago
    A Heartening Discovery
    Page Paul Hein
    Typical statist clap-trap from Wilhelm's letter. Blame the people for the sins of the insatiable PTB. Same way they blamed the people for the contrivied mortgage crisses,than gave the stolen money to the banksters. A person could write volumes enumerating the times the elite trigger the ''problem reaction solution'' gambit. Their have been multitudes fighting the unstoppable expansion of TBTB, to no avail. Could this be the reason why the ''freest country on earth'' has the most prisoners of ALL!? Some take up arms and die,some march and end up imprisoned,some try to use there own law against them (only to have the law ignored or changed on a whim.) > ''OVERCOMING THE ABSURD: LEGAL STRUGGLE AS PRIMITIVE REBELLION What is a Rebel? A man who says no, but whose refusal does not imply a renunciation. He is also a man who says yes, from the moment he makes his first gesture of rebellion (Camus, 1956:13). When conditions of existence become unsatisfactory, people may attempt to change them. Change occurs in many ways, including rebellion, revolution, or reform. One reform strategy that has come into vogue since the social activism of the 1960s has been the use of law. The efficacy of legal reform, polarized particularly by the debates between radicals and liberals, has centered on whether law is an effective means of attaining fundamental change, and whether those who engage in such activities are actually resisting oppressive conditions, or whether they are self-deluded. We focus on the second issue by suggesting that, even if legal reform does not engender profound social consequences, the acts of those so-engaged must still be recognized as a form of rebellion against an absurd environment. http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/Overcoming_the_absurd.html '' Many have burned themselves up with the hours of blood sweat and years ''fighting the good fight'' only to come to the end of their days to realise that the game is rigged. That all the lofty sacred documents have served there purpose of negating any real resistance and stymying any popular fight for freedom. Many come to realise that> Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. All actions are available,Just do not get caught by the regime in power.(everything is legal,just do not get caught by TPTB.) Injury,harm ,tresspass,threats are the real violations,the victim will usually require restitution. That is unless he turns the other cheek.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 5 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    I have come to think of public schools as our greatest enemies.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 5 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    I have come to think of public schools as our greatest enemies.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    WTF? Must be NEO-CONNED! http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/04/allen-west-has-militarist-r... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7zwWqMPqkU
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Why, yes, I have? Have you? These are our natural rights. Having a right to something means having a "just claim" to it; having a natural right, means that, by nature, we humans each have a just claim to our own life, (and no one else's), our own liberty, (and no one else's), our own justly acquired property, (and no one else's). Certain individuals believe that the problem is that we were supposed to have a republican form of government, and not a democracy. So, what is the real difference between these two? REPUBLIC, n. ...a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Well, then, you have your "republican form of government", because the "sovereign power IS lodged in representatives elected by the people". So, that's not the problem; so what is? "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) Just like the American declaration of independence stated, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". Last question. What is the only form of jurisprudence, i.e. "system of laws", that deems all men equal? Here's a clue. "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." ~ Samuel Adams And, here's the answer – to both of the above questions. "Question; where do our freedoms come from? Answer; if the person answering is Thomas Jefferson, from our humanity. God created us in his image and likeness and as he is perfectly free, so too are we perfectly free. And when Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and*[sic] endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he answered that question for all time. Our freedom comes from our humanity. This belief is known as the natural law; that our freedom is as natural to us as the fingers on the end of our hands, the noses in the middle of our faces, or any part of our body, or any part of our spirit." ~ Andrew P.Napolitano, former New Jersey Supreme Court Judge * Not "and", Andrew, all humans are equal only in that they are equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Quod ad jus naturale attinet, omnes homenes aequales sunt. All men are equal before the natural law. Dig. 50, 17, 32. ~ Maxim of law – Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 899 [Emphasis added] "If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the simplest, easiest to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable - whatever its political form might be. ~ Excerpted from The Law by Frédéric Bastiat
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Guest
    "...they overthrew their government so that another could be established in its place — one where “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” might be enjoyed by everyone..." Thus the great, false illusion: that by "establishing" (read: accepting as necessary and deserving of "everybody's" support -- under threat of violence) another government to replace the one overthrown will make "the people" more free. And on. And on. And on. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Get some rest, old friend. And, before "engaging" be sure to read this very carefully, "Coercion refers to the act of persuading or convincing someone to do something using force or other unethical means." (Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. [Emphasis added])" It's not simply "persuasion", but rather unjust persuasion, persuasion "using force or other unethical means". That TED video featuring Alexander Tsiaras that you imbedded in your previous post is SPECTACULAR!! Thank you, Sam!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Not that there have not been "tyrannical" parents -- certainly there have. Probably more so the father than the mother for the simple reason we men did not have the initial bonding of the 9 months Mom had, feeling each movement from the beginning of the live fetus. I meant to add that in most cases the females in the animal kingdom are also probably less observably tyrannical than the males, perhaps for the same reason. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Nice to see you razzle-dazzle with me, Suverans2. I just got home from a truck run and am overly tired and probably not up to going where I can see this going. Not tonight anyhow. I will interject that this interfaces with my premise that the human family is the only authentic and reliable governing unit. I maintain that the human being is totally separate and not related in any sense of that word to the animal kingdom for a number of reasons. The primary one bearing on the fact that the human newborn is unique among living beings in that it (s/he) is wholly dependent upon adult caregivers for several years after birth, and almost always does better with a loving Mom and Dad in the home. I rather support what many will label "tribal rule" if by that they mean the home is the primary and only valid governing unit, but that argument can also go off in many directions. Another reason is the human being "rules" ("administers" would be a better term due to the natural libertarian negativity toward rulership) his/her children with love and concern. That can be looked at as coming out of necessity for those who insist that the theory of evolution is indeed fact and not simply a ploy of a gigantic government (thievery) funded scientific cartel who aim to legitimize the conquering "kahns" as legally authentic heads of government. Not that there have not been "tyrannical" parents -- certainly there have. Probably more so the father than the mother for the simple reason we men did not have the initial bonding of the 9 months Mom had, feeling each movement from the beginning of the live fetus. But to engage in the argument of how "persuasion" differs from "coercion" is too deep for my tired brain for now. I ramble as it is. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Here's a quote from Natural Law by Frank Van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law In the course of history, states have monopolized rule-enforcement within their territories. Not surprisingly, they have given more attention to enforcing their own regulations than to enforcing the rules of justice. After all, the purpose of a state is not the enforcement of the rules of justice but making people comply with its own demands and regulations. Moreover, if states were really intent on eradicating injustice then they would achieve by far the greatest part of their purpose by eradicating themselves -- for whatever it is states generally do, respecting persons[1] or their property is no part of it. This is a MUST READ for men and women who are not affiliated with the governments of men, or those wishing to be free of the political corporations created by man. _______________________________________________________________ [1] Unfortunately, Frank, those who call themselves "the state" DO respect [the] persons of men, it is men and women that they do not respect. Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 736 -- for whatever it is states generally do, respecting man's natural rights of life, liberty and property is no part of it.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 19 weeks ago
    A Heartening Discovery
    Page Paul Hein
    To paraphrase Stalin: "The law doesn't matter. Who interprets the law matters".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    This "illegal" alien controversy is very strange business. People complain that "illegals" don't pay taxes. So, paying taxes is a good thing? Do the people who complain about aliens not paying them, attempt to increase their own taxes because it is good to pay them? What's going on with aliens is the same thing that goes on with "terrorists". The government allegedly acts to "protect" us from them, but in reality does what it can to increase the "threats" from them. Why? To justify their existence in "protecting" us. If there was no terror, if people didn't mind Jose swimming across some river, we would have no need for government. Also, this is a great "divide and conquer" tactic. The rulers are always looking for more ways to do that.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Guest
    The article raises an excellent point about how to counter the "we only are protesting ILLEGAL immigration" argument. But it gets a little pollyannish here: "Law exists to serve the people, to protect their rights — to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Silly me. I thought laws exist to serve the rulers.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Guest
    Unfortunately, it is in the interest of the US govt that more terrorists be created. The govt then has to "protect" us from them, you see. Look at all the phony plots cooked up by the FBI recently. The ruling class is quite practiced at justifying their existence, at our expense.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 19 weeks ago
    A Heartening Discovery
    Page Paul Hein
    The only fly in the ointment with Wilhelm's letter, is that there is an assumption that people should invest a lot of time in begging the rulers to keep what is theirs. Somehow, that does not appeal to me much any more (after having done it for years). Perhaps it is because I don't have a lot of time left, being age 62. There are other ways of going about this. One of the best I think is, don't make much! Wealth attracts thieves, so don't be wealthy. There are benefits to living economically even outside the fact that less will be stolen from you. Or one could work in the black market. As to the problem of regulating what you do, there is always voting with your feet, and simply ignoring regulations. Maybe even threatening the regulators, although that is better reserved for people who have nothing to lose... These other ways don't involve begging, so I think that adds to their charm.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    G'day Sam, If I may, my friend, a slight correction. Those who call themselves "the state", or "the law", do not have a "monopoly on violence", but they most certainly do have a "near-monopoly on coercion". "Violence is the use of physical force intended to harm." Whereas, "Coercion refers to the act of persuading or convincing someone to do something using force or other unethical means." (Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. [Emphasis added]) These plunderers must use coercion to enforce compliance to their peculiar positive law.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Sir William Bla...
    With (o)bama anything works, right or wrong, but mostly wrong.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "The ruling class does not rule without at least tacit popular support." This is true. I think it is also true that anarchists cannot have liberty without at least tacit popular support. So, we need to find some kind of accommodation with them, isn't that so? Let's work in our own interests, as consistently as we can figure out how to do that.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    In the above response I embedded a column by Jeff Berwick writing about the dangerous word "we". In checking the comment for errors I see the video that had appeared at the end of Jeff's article has been scuttled, and (for me anyway) that was the most colorful part of the piece. So, I googled Doug Stanhope and found the video (not for those whose sensitivities are negatively effected by what we've come to call "bad" language): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKT4a-RMT5o
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "Paleo" as a suffix generally means "old" (in this case I suspect "original"). I think Savrano is referring to what we think of as "traditional" conservatism (non intervention by agents of this state into the affairs of others, etc), as opposed to "neo" conservatism ("neocon") -- the idea "we" should engage in wars around the world to "...make the world safe for democracy..." (and establish the "potus" as a true emperor -- never mentioned but always envisioned). Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    One last thought about Robert Higgs' piece: "...My studies have left me pessimistic about the prospects for the survival of free societies, in part because of the relationship just described..." I am a free society. I survive. So there. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Entito Savrano uses the term [paleoconservitism] what does he mean by this. I do not believe that during the paleoitiic period politics as we know it exists. My best guess is he is refering to the elder ideas of conservativism. Can someone help me with this. I know it is a dumb question to some of you but to me it is not a dumb question. Thanks whoever decides to help me out.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 19 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    It never ceases to amaze me the plethora of deep cognitive knowledge that flows from you in every piece that appears on this sight. I only wish I could have meet you years sooner so I could have gotten my head out of my ass. I am also amazed that you have not written an article for the Root. If you have I can't find it. I have been going to many sites and reading the material, but I find that my withering mind just can't seem to keep up wth the information and blend it into a concise line of thought. You have been my mentor because of the kindness you have shown me through communication. I cannot imagine where I could be at this point if others would try to take me under their wing and guide me along the Danteian path to wade through all the circle.
  • Zhenyi Li's picture
    Zhenyi Li 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    One day last year a daughter of Earl Spencer (who is therefore a niece of Princess Diana) called a taxi to take her and a friend from her family home at Althorp in Northamptonshire to see Chelsea play Arsenal at football. She told the driver “Stamford Bridge”, the name of Chelsea’s stadium, but he delivered them instead to the village of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire, nearly 150 miles in the opposite direction. They missed the game.Essay Help|Expert Paper Writer|Write My Essay For Me|Get Free Essays
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Sam; your most welcome. I believe you are correct as well. The misunderstanding is on my part not yours. Hence the reason i am a better editor then a writer.lol. you hit it perfectly with the up coming ritual to entertain the masses called ''indepedence'' day. Serenity
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Serenity: "...The only thing i might differ with you on is the nature of the beast being better at one time of history. It never has been a good thing. History proves out its nature to be blood thirsty savages..." I think the reason for possible difference lies in my choice of words rather than any actual disparity between you and me. You and I both agree on the basic premise: all political action is always based upon monopoly of violence; all monopoly violence (where the aggressee is prohibited by law and/or "popular constraints" from defending himself) is brutal savagery. In analogizing "the state" with malignant carcinoma I suspect both you and I see it as an accurate parallel -- except that in the early stages cancer might be treatable. "State" offers no treatment due to the acceptance of most within its area of influence. Look, for instance, at the political holiday coming up in a day or two. Everybody will celebrate (except me, and possibly thee). What? "Independence!" Independence from what? "That terrible king of England!" (Old King George would roll over in his grave if he could get a glimpse of the egregious police state and the evil obamarama "his" colonies have morphed into since he admitted "defeat" and brought his red-coated war-slaves back home). South of the fictitious line in the sand it's "Cinco de Mayo" -- "independence" from "France", etc etc etc -- everybody has an "independence day", thanks to Big-Brother. It's an ingenious tactic by predators to whip the docile little sheep into fervent celebration of war and legitimization of state. Back to Entito Sovrano -- he ends his essay: "...Ideas are then lumped into a strict dichotomy of ‘American/un-American’ ideas whereby the ‘un-American’ are derided for simply ‘being’ un-American, without any further inquiry. Apart from the fact that this approach dooms one to poor historiography, this is also how nationalism metastasises into fascism... "The quicker that that history is laid to rest as history and nothing more, the faster those freedom-seekers will realise that there are new and better ways forward..." So the state is a diabolical malignancy no matter in what stage the victim discovers it. Last time I voted was 1964, after my hero Barry Goldwater was soundly trounced in the bread-and-circus promotion ("election") of the time. Later Harry Browne and a few others gently led me toward libertarian principles (some were more gentle than others, I should add). Then along came the internet and STR and other anarchy forums, where I could actively exchange ideas with Mark Davis and Jim Davies and many other top promoters of liberty. Statism was forever behind me. Many right now are dipping their toes into the icy h2o of anarchy -- some due to having been unemployed and desperate and finally awakening to the underlying cause of the malady -- monopoly violence. Others -- many others -- will come into our midst once the real crunch begins to unfold. I want the hand of liberty to greet them as they come over. Thanks again for submitting Entito Sovrano's article. Sam
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I agree with you. Entito is a true anarchist and a brilliant writer. His take on things from an anarchist position are brilliant. Rank right up there with Lysander Spooner in my humble opinion. I admire those who can articulate what I think but cannot put into words. i agree with you that predators seek power but that is the nature of those who seek to prey on their fellow human being. power attracts the worst element of society not the best of it. The only thing i might differ with you on is the nature of the beast being better at one time of history. It never has been a good thing. History proves out its nature to be blood thirsty savages. Ironic that the reason for enslaving the indians was they were so called ''savages'' yet the state was the one who turned savage and still is. It has been brutal from its beginning. Washington used it to subdue farmer Shay and his whiskey rebellion. This monster has never been good. Only good at brain washing those who worship it and give it legitimacy. That is my opinion for what its worth. Thank you for your comments.