Recent comments

  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Sam, I will not insult you by thanking your for your service to the millions of Americans of this Great Nation (not the government, but us as a people wanting to be free). I served during the Viet Nam era, didn't want to, but I knew I did not have the freedom to choose differently then so I went ahead and did it to get it over with. I agree whole heartedly and with the deepest respect that war is something out of the bowels of hell created by greedy, self-agrandizing zelots. However I strongly object to dispariging those who served their country (not their government). Iraq should never have happened. But I respect the blood soaked ground young men and women are dying on, I repect their decision. I do not like this bull-shit anymore than anyone else. Today I would never volunteer, but I would respect those who do, it is their belief. If they can be taught different then so be it. The hellishness of this is what do you do if we do not engage an enemy whom is threatening the lives of our children and grandchildren and possible enslavement of a worse nature for the future generations. As I underestand it a Libertarian is anti-aggression unless aggressed against. Do you wait until the guy on the next stool knocks the mortal hell out of you before you become offenive. Do you suggest that we let Iran shoot the first nuclear weapon on one of our cities and kills hundreds of thousand american lives. If this is Libertarianism then I wish no part of it. When I walk out of my house I am already in a defensive mode ready to become offensive in a heart beat. Sam. I sincerely hope that if someone should thank you for your service you will merely nod your head and walk on by. If I am correct this is the conduct a libertarian would take. I thank vets, but I never mention that I also served. I thank them because I respect them and the decision they made. I Sam, I am curious though. Was it not possible for you to have gone to Canada at the time you were drafted? It may not have crossed your mind at the time, but during the Viet Nam Era I know some who did exactly that. I do not disparage them for their decision because it was their "Natural Freedom" that gave them the choice. If I had know then, as I do now, I probably would have scooted to Canada myself.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Samarami. I guess it is about how we view freedom. I am entirely uncertain what Libertarians actually believe. It seems to me there is a plethora of different style of Libertarians. Maybe that should be expected, but I am a person who is really autistic for consistancy despite the fact that I am as inconsistant as can be. Some of the things I read I kind of agree with in regards to the libertarian position. I agree that the government is nothing near what the Constitution outlines and I agree that our Bill of Rights has virtually diasppeared. The Constitution, as far as I have learned to date, started getting screwed up with George Washington and the Whiskey Tax. From there it all started going to hell in a hand basket. Now. I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals, probably less against them than our tyrannical federal and state government. I have not brought myself around to accepting the idea of marrage, maybe in time. If I believe that all people have a "Natural Right to Freedom"; in the countable and uncountable stages of the noun, then it would clearly be hipocritical of me to say no to marrage (my objection is a learned response). My strongest objection to gays is not the law abiding respectable gay person its the freeks that want to parade about and flaunt their lifestyle under the noses of the American people. These actions do more harm for the decent and respectable gay person and their cause than anything else. I was raised by homophobic parents and parents who strenuously objected to black folks. As a kid I could undertand the homophobia, but could never grasp the detestation for Black Americans. Yes I am still uneasy about black and white marrages, but there ain't nuttin I can do about it. My youngest son engaged himself with a black woman and sired an offspring, and I love the boy dearly. How in the hell does that happen. My daddy and momma would come snarling out of their graves over this. If my son were gay I would go privately nuts. As I see it, the primary isssue is that gay people want the same legal rights married people have (to be penalized through the marrage penalty secret clause written nowhere). It would be cheaper for me to divorce my wife and we both continue to live together. You might not be a Christian, and it makes no difference, but you do need to respect their position, at least the way I understand the libertarian philosophy (which is very little as I am only interested in being able to have the freedom to do what I wish without harming anyone else as I do what I want to do, and I don't appreciate the government stuffing their nose up my ass to tax me for having hemroids). John Adams stated that this country would collapse if we were not a moral and virtuious people. Looking at what has evolved over and throughout history this seems to be somewhat of an accurate prediction. Now. Politely enlighten me. O.K. and not over my spelling and grammer.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Here's a case of the cart being placed squarely in front of the horse. Of what concern is it to me (as a libertarian) what is sanctioned or not sanctioned by agents of state? Far as I can see it won't affect me or my family if state agents "license" dogs or horses or jackasses to marry. I might encourage them to do so. Until relatively recent history functionaries of civil government had not discovered the propriety (and lucrative theft/control device) of "licensing" individuals to marry. That was a church function. Enacting federal reserve and income tax laws for control of the unwashed masses (and the fruits of their production) gave rise to such encroachments as enhanced marriage "laws" and "licensing". I'll agree to the egregiousness of promoting the "gay" phenomenon as normal behavior in government ("public" ha ha) schools. I see that as a small blip in a large globalist agenda. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Discrimination
    Page Paul Bonneau
    In Michigan we have what is called "Criminal empowerment Zones" and are usually places where mass murder and mahem occurs. Those places would be: Schools, churches, theaters, post offices, bars, state and federal buildings and a few others I cannot recollect at the moment. We have an organization that keeps tabs on businesses that are suppose to say "No Guns Allowed" and they are posted on the site. One place I go frequently does not have a sign posted clearly and is kept quiet obscure. However, here, if the owner notes you are carrying he must ask you to leave otherwise all that happens is you can be cited for trespassing; not an offense that would cause you to loose your licenses. Since the sign is not obvious I continue to carry and plead ignorance because it is obscure. Since I am concealed carry I have no problem wandering into a store that says no guns allowed. They are not going to see it anyway, even if they do all they can do is ask me to leave. Once they do that I will inform them that I will let others know to not participate in the facility (probably won't hurt their business any though).
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Damned you are good. I wish I could have the opportunity to chat with you. I have seen and met supposed intellectuals that are no smarter than a high school drop out. Me. I have a bachelors and a masters degree, which I am proud of, but don't meet up to the titles. I still feel like a high school drop out. Is there any possibility that we could communicate for a bit.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks for your work. I believe this site could use more people like you. Wish I had the cognitive intuitiveness to dig like that. I tend to dabble here and their just looking without focus. I am not a true Libertarian but a "wanter of my freedom as intended by the Constitution", a Constitution which may be flawed, but if kept constant in a simple line of definition just might be pretty damned good. Just saying, not proclaiming.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    I am presuming that for Libertarians this is not big deal and might be considered a victory for freedom. In one respect this would be true, but I am not certain this has been clearly thought through. I don't want to knee jerk here because I am a 2nd amendment freek, I am married to the idea that I have a right to own and carry a firearm and for me to be against this would make me hipocritical(sp?). I have nothing against gay individuals. I was raised with a homophobic bent, but have gradually become lets say tolerant. I probably will not be able to accept this concept, despite the fact that maybe they truely do have the right. My concern is the future and right now our public school systems are beginning to force the concept on very young minds and in cases encouraging experimentation. This is something I cannot agree with. Anyway that's my position because I find it to be shocking that a community of religious Jews could ever come to such a consensus given the scriptures they have. I probably should not have said anything, but I have and here it is.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I was digging around Wikipedia and found one apparent confirmation of my suggestion that great wealth creates governments and the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization "The historical Etruscans had achieved a state system of society, with remnants of the chiefdom and tribal forms.... The princely tombs were not of individuals. The inscriptional evidence shows that families were interred there over long periods, marking the growth of the aristocratic family as a fixed institution, parallel to the gens at Rome and perhaps even its model. There is no sign of such a hereditary aristocracy in the preceding Villanovan culture. The Etruscans could have used any model of the eastern Mediterranean. That the growth of this class is related to the new acquisition of wealth through trade is unquestioned." I had earlier another apparent confirmation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla "At that time, Ebla was a major commercial center. Its major commercial rival was Mari, with whom it fought a lengthy war estimated as lasting 80–100 years.... The form of government is not well known, but the city appears to have been ruled by a merchant aristocracy who elected a king and entrusted the city's defense to paid soldiers." However from my impression is control of the earliest Sumerian cities were centered more around religion than commerce. Anyway I find this an interesting question. Too bad the information from those times is so incomplete.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    SOooo? Anarchy: It Can’t Work Here and There Are No Examples in History. [Nope!!] Consider this query: where has anarchy worked? Those who defend anarchy have likely had this question thrown at them in every conversation. Those who believe anarchy equals chaos likely have thrown out this question in every conversation. First, what does “worked” mean? Worked for whom? Worked how? The same can be asked about the state. When has the state (defined as the legal monopoly of force over a given geographic region) worked? Worked for whom? How? For those who don’t want to be under the threat of coercion, inherently anarchy works. For those who prefer peaceful means of relationships, anarchy works. For those who believe the initiation of force is wrong, again anarchy works. For such people, in fact it is the only form of structuring society that “works.” For those who believe it is right that man lords over man, anarchy does not work. For such people, the state certainly works. For those who believe that the same act could be either legal or illegal, depending on the employer of the actor, the state works. For those who believe that force and coercion is the proper means by which to order society, the state works. But where has the state worked in regards to those areas of our lives the state says it is working on? The state has taken on many challenges, supposedly for the benefit of its subjects: managing the economy, peaceful coexistence with others in the world, elimination of poverty, teenage drinking, illicit drugs, health care, etc. Can any of these endeavors undertaken by the state be deemed successful? The list of state failures is exactly as long as the list of state-run programs. Should the burden of proof of the benefits of considering anarchy and opposing the state really be on the proponent of anarchy? The following is addressed: Anarchy: The Historical Record... The Fight for Control... Anarchy is Uncivilized? Creating Subjects... State-Accessible Product... Population Increases and Control via Slavery... The Defense Benefits of Being a Non-State... State-ordered Society is a Civilized Society? [Indeed] The Art of NOT Being Governed - Anarchy: The Unknown Ideal http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/03/anarchy-unknown-ideal.html
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Well...it may have failed but its all we have, and the probability of changing it must be zero. The question is "What's the solution that can be implimented". I also wonder if the Constituton was merely hi-jacked. If it was, what can be done to return it to the people What gets to be weirisome is all the complaining and venting, but a coming together to make change happen I have not observed on the site, especially when you can read that "one" person, at individual points of time, have made a difference in affecting a change in the laws. I haven't figured it out and it appears as though no one else has either.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    To see the military-industrial-police-state-prison-gmo-food-acadamia-intellectual-property-war-is-a-racket farm is to leave it. Apparently there is enough people who know this and more are finding more productive ways to live. Some things to consider at Lewrockwell, Mises, MIT and more: Cross Reference http://www.strike-the-root.com/how-dare-you-rob-me-of-my-time-on-earth Gen. Smedley Butler wrote a book titled "War Is a Racket". Here is an excerpt: Smedley defined a racket as "something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people." War, he goes on, "is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious" of rackets. Reference: Where Is Smedley When We Need Him? http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer42.html
  • tomcat's picture
    tomcat 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    This Article is in many ways typical.It emphasizes on the losses of Freedom, Money and human lives on the american Side. These are the losses that count.One could very well get the Impression that all these Wars wouldnt be so bad if it wasnt about these american Sacrifices.So much Selfcenteredness and Self Pity.! In other Regions of the world People experience a similar Amount of Loss not over years and decades but within a few weeks. @Glock27: Never mind, of course this has nothing to do with american foreign Policy and military Actions, no way, they brought this all to themselves.! Many Americans seem to have a rather simplistic view of the world. As if it comes right out of a naive 1950's Wild West Movie. "We are the good Guys, we acting only good and justly and whoever stands up against the singing Cowboy must be the Villain." So why do so many People in other Parts of the World hate America ? Since there can't be a reasonable Cause its most likely because you are great, clever and just and they are second class, stupid and evil.Maybe with some effort they can be brought to their senses so they become more like you. Masturbating in Front of your own mirror image and sending yourself flowers afterwards because you have been such a great lover! Just try not to fall for Groupidentity and Herdinstinct, dont be a "right or wrong my country - Hurrah"-Patridiot. They have their Salafists, you have your Biblebelt.Look for a Christian fundamentalist in your own Land, shouldnt be difficult to find one after you have taken the Plank out of your own Eye.The Views about the role of women in society and the disrespect and sometimes outright Hatred for People with non standard Sexuality or the "wrong" faith are very similar on both Sides.If it wasnt about some minor Differences in their "holy Books" they could actually become good friends. As far as the "extinction of the Jews" is concerned, get yourself a correct Translation of the referring Ahmadinejad-Speech. Learn about the Role the Europeans and the Americans played in the Middle east during the last hundred Years especially in Iran and Irak and the way the State of Israel was created. But maybe you see nothing wrong in giving some stupid Natives a colonial Treatment due to your own History. Otherwise do you know the Difference between a Jew and a Zionist ?.That many Jews, Rabbis, prominent Artists and Intellectuals are outspoken Opponents of "eretz Israel".? Could you tell me why a suicidebomber is a criminal coward while a Fighterpilot or Droneoperator dropping his Bombs killing either "accidently" or "inevitably" civilians is a brave Hero? Just because he considers himself as a Reincarnation of Roy Rogers? Your best friends in the Region are Israel, a copycat of former Apartheid-South Africa and Saudi-Arabia, by Americas own double Standards of human rights and "democracy" by far the worst Regime in whole Region. There is no intellectual or moral Superiority on your Side, only Arrogance, Greed and the Lust for Power. With most of the hostility against you caused by your own Actions, if your are looking for Terrorists, you can tell your "innocent Grunts" to look at those who are giving the Orders.And then they should look at each other: those who are obeying the Orders.
  • DanClore's picture
    DanClore 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Working Capital
    Page Jim Davies
    I have an article on "Socialism and Capitalism" at Nolan Chart, but the spamfilter won't let me give the URL.
  • DanClore's picture
    DanClore 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Working Capital
    Page Jim Davies
    You have it right that the meaning of the term "capitalism" has been changed over time, but you're a little mistaken about the actual course of events. The occupiers are the ones using the term in its traditional sense.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Thanks! The short answer. [It is already happening with Russia, Iceland, Wenchou province, Steve Wynn in Macau, the fashion industry, MIT, Khan Academy, Bitcoin etc]: I’ll tell you the reason I do not feel the need to have to explain how freedom might work. Look back at the last couple of hundred years. Look at the explosion in technology. Look at the advances in the medical field. Look at the marvels taking place in the computing world. My goodness, look at the Internet itself. Everywhere we look we see human genius at work. This boom started to happen right around the same time chattel slavery was abolished in many countries. Do you think this is a coincidence? When men could no longer own other humans, and force those humans to labor, they had to come up with alternatives. Necessity is the mother of invention, and when you own slaves, there is no need for invention or innovation. This is the reason why I consider myself a 21st century abolitionist, *I only have to look to the recent past to know that the abolition of slavery leads to amazing things. This is why I do not spend time explaining freedom, I spend my time explaining slavery*. Along with being an abolitionist, I am also a capitalist. I have been fond of saying, “I have my ideas, but they are mine.” If you need some advise on how to live your life without the use of slaves, I’ll start a business called the “Freedom Consulting Firm”, and then you can pay me for my ideas.... 21st Century Abolitionists by Chris Dates http://zerogov.com/?p=2371 A huge breakthru in freedom and a lead in: In the comment section of his article Chris is replying to a poster: who assumes I [Chris] would want some kind of idea protection [such as using the coercive power of government] just because I [he's]..a capitalist. That sort of thinking has helped to breed the ignorance that surrounds capitalism. [1. And here is Lessons from fashion's *free culture* [already existent]: Johanna Blakley on TED.com] http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/25/lessons_from_fa/ 2. Watch Steve Wynn's (hotel/club) move to Macau (Direct Actions). Moving innovatively, spiritually and physically to spaces of freedom in an unfree world AND making innovation actually possible--(Direct Results). And that translates to waitresses making north of $100K in Macau working with Steve. Embracing the division of labor society (laissez faire capitalism) remnant http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland19.1.html 3. Anarchy and Agoras...Welcome to Wenzhou, where the mountains are high, the emperor is far away, and people are busy creating their own economic miracle. ] http://www.bradleymgardner.com/2011/11/16/wenzhou-chinas-black-market-city/ Etc....There is many more examples (I will post later) Chris continues: *Everything the human race uses and has* was at one time the idea of some individual. The collective has benefited because the individual dared to dream and then acted on his idea, and yes it’s his. That’s capitalism, and ideas are the heart of capitalism. I want *stateless capitalism, where the **only way my ideas can be guarded** is **by offering the best product at the lowest prices**. If you want what I [or others] have to offer bad enough, you will [voluntarily] pay for it, the *free market will see to it*.
  • Guest's picture
    Marvin (not verified) 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    First of all you are free. Freedom is from within not without. They may throw you in a prison, tax you, take away your "rights" but you are always free. This is the hardest thing to realize, that you have to free yourself from mental slavery. It's easier to fight the bad guys without than to tackle the slave master in your mind. It doesn't happen instantly and it's a process, I guess until you die. The only "solution" is in each individual. To force a solution on others because we believe we have the answer is the same thing governments do. You have to come up with your own plan. Will people resist you? Yes. Will others hate you for your beliefs, ethnicity, sexual preference, or even your intelligence? They always have and always will. You can't change the world but you can change yourself and when I change myself for the better my world becomes better. As for the WW1 Christmas truce, it was acted on by the men in the trenches on both sides, I'm saying what was so different about the 25th of December, that made them realize that the enemy was human just like them and lay down their weapons, than let's say January 22? Nothing just a mindset. If you haven't already, read Thoreau's work or Emerson, Lysander Spooner, Tolstoy and many others. I'm sure the same sentiments these writers have put on paper you have thought from time to time. What brought me close to Thoreau was not me blindly following the sayings of a man but finding that the same thoughts he had were my own reflected back to me. Yes Samarami, we are all blind in aspects of our lives but the great thing is that we see our faults and become better.
  • sscharliem's picture
    sscharliem 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I say don't let on, play the game, listen the trial, deliberate on the facts, but not convinced, one has to vote NOT GUILTY.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Both of the above comments have merit and are well thought-out. I support you both in your willingness to comment and express yourselves. That's what liberty is all about, and it will come from the likes of us -- not from vultures of state and their state wars. Please never kid yourself that any war anywhere fought by any warrior has ever brought "freedom" to anybody. All wars from early history have led to subjugation, abject slavery, and unbelievably large numbers of mutilations, rapes and deaths of innocent victims -- not to mention conflicting participants who are NOT "innocent". That's what war is. Always. I'm 76. I was enslaved ("drafted") as a child by agents of state and forced to become a murderer. I served nobody. I did a disservice to all who were alive then, and who have been born since (including my 7 children and their families). Please do not insult me by thanking me "for my service". The 14 months I spent in Korea taught me some valiant lessons in rejecting statism and embracing anarchy, which is peace. I've spent the better part of sixty years forgiving myself and getting to anarchy and STR. That does not absolve me from blame. If I were to return to providing aid and comfort to "the state" (which does not exist -- only its agents and supporters exist) I would take on the same old killer instinct and guilt I've worked to jettison. Political holidays such as this are a stroke of genius on the part of the beast to prompt the unwashed masses to stand up and root for state parasites and their violence in drumming up and conducting state wars. War drums are a-beatin' over in the District of Collectivism as we speak. If they can't find an excuse to bomb Iran, they'll bomb Syria. Be free, and Abstain From Beans Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I like your comment. I believe what you have expressed here is an accurate opinion. I am not a libertarian, but have felt compelled to figure it out a little more than what I know. I have read a few materials and they tend to make good sense but in our nation we have a government and a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. I recognize that these documents clearly mean nothing to the legislators and was stuned to learn there are some who do not know the three branches of government. Anyway, with today and todays Libertarians everyone seems to keep springing from the Constitution and at the same time keep knocking it down. It all seems so confusing. What do you believe in (Rhetorical). Please do not take my comments as critical, but as inquire. i am not arguing or debating just learning. Respectfully Glock 27 Former Military and proud to have served,
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    This seems great to me. I like all the concepts here, but how do you impliment such a construction. I think this is the dream most all Americans want.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Enjoyed your comment. Will check th book out. I am not a Libertarian, probably couldn't be, but I believe in many of the principles presented by Libertarianism.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    In essence then the whole of the human race is just simply stupid If this is the proposition then libertarians are stupid as well. Dreams are one thing and reality is another. We have to face the realities of others, ergo I believe it is not an intelligent move too believe that other men will not recognize that everyday is as precious as Christmas and decide never to fight again. That logic does not match with an alternate intelligence, and culture, where a religion says that everyone else is nothing more than fagots to be burned, all christians must die, all Americans must die. This is a reality demonstrated daily. (You can't honestly believe that you will change a communist to a libertarian principle, or a radical Muslim who wants all Jews off the face of the earth and Americans). Proclaiming to be a libertarian is one thing, but doing something constructive about it is another. I wish there were a solution, but I cannot see one. The only thing I can think of is to become one of them (speaking here now about the federal government) and fight from the inside out. These sites are terriably interesting, but I never see anyone working towards a solution, actually presenting a workable plan. Even if there were, how would it be deployed to make a difference. The government we have is all we have and the change has to come from there unless there is a bonified revolution, and I don't see that coming either. All of this is nothing more than a dream unless there is an applied action to make it become a reality. For me, I am for the grunt, right or wrong they are under the belief that they are doing good, they bleed and they die for something they think is right. I am greatful for their sacrifice. As a libertarian they should still be respected. I just hope that when SHTF they do not turn on their own citizens as has occurred in other countries. I persist in saying that their beliefs have a right to be respected. Without respect there will never be a middle ground to be reached. I recognize that we have lost everything, starting with Washington and the "Whiskey Tax Rebellion". I would deeply appreciate having all my freedoms back, but they are lost. To gain them back one must work with what is currently available, not against it--for working against it only creates impentratable barriers that will never be over come. Please note this is not a criticism, but an observation. I am not arguing but presenting an idea. If you have an answer then please offer it. Criticism will not change my perspect only solid, rational reason will achieve that.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Smashing: Fail; Withdrawing/[Marginalization]: Epic Win. Epic Win The Americans formed a continental government to overthrow Britain. It was mutated into the constitution which has authorised all the tyranny we now suffer, or was powerless to prevent any of it. (I think it is the former, and by design.) If we are going to avoid the same mistakes, over and over and over and over, it is important to understand what has gone before. That's why it is so important to read works of literature, philosophy, and practical politics in their original. You can't understand things by reading some other person's interpretation of ideas—what was interpreted ten minutes ago for someone else isn't going to match your situation right now. Raise up free markets. Raise up the spontaneous order of the market. Raise up the agora. Not to smash the state, but to obviate it. Not to make it the victim, and encourage its supporters to give it more power, but to show it as the bully it is. Show the surplus order of the state for what it is, so that people choose to abandon it. What do I mean by surplus order? I mean exactly what Alvin and Heidi Toffler meant in 1990's Powershift: Wealth, Knowledge, and Violence on the edge of the 21st Century. They meant to distinguish between the order that ordinary people want (self rule)—to be able to walk down the street without being attacked by riot police, to cross a border without being beaten and arrested, to enter a shop without being raped, to operate a shop without endless shop lifting. That sort of basic order is the order of the free market, and widely available. Surplus order imposes riot police wherever there are protesters, border police at every border crossing, a security camera in every place it can, a surveillance net for every cell phone call. Surplus order is when the state revokes passports, sets up a barricade at every airport and train station, kicks in doors at 3 a.m., and drags parents away from their screaming children. *Such surplus order does nothing for the people living in communities. It serves only those who control the state. [If one thinks/believes that it is not so and that there ARE no alternatives and no living proof of such then they take the serious risk of being considered trolls]* Smashing: Fail; Withdrawing: Epic Win by Jim Davidson http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle549-20091220-11.html
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    The notion that *foreign wars* and entanglements are wrong still emanates from a sparsely populated philosophical quarter that has no majority presence in the academy or the government–media complex. It is a true voice in the wilderness. That voice has one signature message: you cannot thank a veteran for your freedom because they have actively done nothing more than endanger its very existence. In fact, American military power abroad (and increasingly, at home) has made civilians more unsafe than they have ever been. The threat not only emerges from aggrieved victims of American brutality abroad but a government desperate in bad times to ensure that not one dollar of military expenditures is reduced. America is now a national security garrison state. Think about that the next time you take a flight. Veterans don’t need gratitude but a self-realization on their part that the machine they worked for was never an engine for liberty but a device whose single purpose was aggrandizement of American political power at home and abroad. And that political hammer always extinguishes liberty and never expands it. The Shame of Veteran’s and Memorial Day by Bill Buppert May 28th, 2012 http://zerogov.com/?p=2662 References: The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms by Jacob G. Hornberger http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger64.html
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Americans who show such strong support for America's *foreign wars [and the implications of such] see above* are living under a moral code that endorses States over rights, obedience of men to whatever States happen to control the territories they inhabit, decision-making control over war-making and indeed all public affairs by these States, and the precedence of duties to the State over other moral obligations. The antimony between those Americans who believe in these ideas and those who do not cannot be resolved with one government over all. Majority rule, voting, democracy and all that these mean can't resolve such basic and irreconcilable differences. Those who support America's wars almost unconditionally as morally right are making at least 4 assumptions each of which is to a very high degree, and some (including me) would say altogether, questionable. May 28, 2012 Memorial Day: A Reminder of Failed Moral Principles Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on May 28, 2012 02:21 PM http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112894.html And furthermore: The Stateless Society Fights Back Life without a state? Really? Answers to common questions. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux5.html And yet what is going on NOW in Russia and Iceland and such Iranian fishermen as stated above is summed up at the root by Marvin: "How could we have a war if no one showed up to fight? If we are to strike the root then simply soldiers are the root. Hitler and Stalin are not the most evil people in the world what about the people who followed them. We all have to take responsibility for our actions there are no innocent grunts. Misguided, blinded, tricked maybe but we all have to put off our foolishness and misconceived notions at some point if not then we are perpetually children who do things just because our parents(Government) told us so. For example the Christmas Truce in WW1, why couldn't men realize that everyday is as precious as Christmas and decided never to fight again? They had a glimmer of insight to see the enemy("dirty terrorists" [dirty terrorcrats] ) as men themselves". http://www.strike-the-root.com/memorial-day-propaganda#comment-6216 Way before my time, but listen to and read the lyrics of "Universal Soldier". As even us, those who are not in the military are to blame for not doing more for peace. Indeed there is as evidenced a vanguard who remain *UNcommon* in regard to Goering Was Right Posted by Lew Rockwell on May 29, 2012 09:57 AM http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112940.html
  • Guest's picture
    Marvin (not verified) 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    How could we have a war if no one showed up to fight? If we are to strike the root then simply soldiers are the root. Hitler and Stalin are not the most evil people in the world what about the people who followed them. We all have to take responsibility for our actions there are no innocent grunts. Misguided, blinded, tricked maybe but we all have to put off our foolishness and misconceived notions at some point if not then we are perpetually children who do things just because our parents(Government) told us so. For example the Christmas Truce in WW1, why couldn't men realize that everyday is as precious as Christmas and decided never to fight again? They had a glimmer of insight to see the enemy("dirty terrorists") as men themselves. Way before my time, but listen to and read the lyrics of "Universal Soldier". As even us, those who are not in the military are to blame for not doing more for peace.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 39 weeks ago
    Working Capital
    Page Jim Davies
    One more comment -- this on your first paragraph and the definitions and the distortions thereof that seem to permeate the libertarian mindset. First a rehash: capital is the ingredient needed to launch any enterprise. Most libertarians would agree that far. But I started some years ago to jot down and eventually cataloged some of the hordes of "definitions" I would come across when reading libertarian/anarchist oriented essays: • Agorism • Anarchism • Anarcho-Capitalism (Mises/Rothbard) • Anarcho-communism • Anarcho-syndicalism • Anti-Positivism • Apriorism • Autarchism (Le Fevre) • Carsonian mutualism • Classical Liberalism • Collectivist anarchist • Communism • Consequentialism • Eco-agorism • Eco-Libertarianism • Eco-Socialist-Libertarian • Establishment liberal left • Explicitly anarchist, pro-decentralist libertarians (Kinsella) • Free Market Anarchism • Geoanarchism • Geoism • Geolibertarianism • Georgism • Green-Libertarianism • Individualist anarchism • Individualist/collectivist anarchist Individualist/collectivist anarchism • Left Libertarianism • Left-Rothbardians • Legal Positivism • Liberal socialism • Liberalism • Libertarian Populism (James Ostrowski) • Libertarian Socialism • Libertarianism • Localism and decentralization • Logical Positivism • Market anarchism • Minarchism • Modal Libertarianism • Modern Liberalism • Moral consequentialism • Mutualism • Natural-rights libertarianism • Neo-liberalism • Neolibertarianism • Objectivism • Panarchism • patrio-psychotic anarcho-materialism http://www.subgenius.com/ • Plumbline Libertarianism • Polycentrism • Praxeology • Primitivist Anarchism • Progressive Libertarianism • Punkish/syndicalist/queer radical social anarchism (above two from Rad Geek site) • Queer anarchism (“sex workers?”) • Radical minarchists • Right Libertarianism • Rothbardian strain of market anarchism • Schmodal Libertarianism • Scientific Anarchism Social Darwinian right-wing economics • Socialism • Socialist Anarchism • Socialist-Libertarianism • syndicalism • Syndicalist Anarchism • Utilitarianism (Friedman’s strain of Anarcho-capitalism) • Utopian socialism • Voluntarism • Zenarchism I suspect some readers here at STR could contribute more to my list, but I think this comes to well over 50. But, as I see it, most of us agree on one thing: the absence -- the complete absence -- of monopoly state will be a great benefit to mankind. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 39 weeks ago
    Working Capital
    Page Jim Davies
    One of your less flamboyant, Jim, but among your best. "Capital" is the ignition of all venture. Nothing happens until one has the wherewithal to launch the enterprise -- and you can call that wherewithal "capital". J. E. Bush -- the black sheep of the Bush crowd (he eschewed political action), but a self-made millionaire nonetheless -- taught me years ago in Dallas: the only thing one can buy, sell or trade upon is energy. Man's physical and his mental energy (ingenuity). This was back before the term "energy crisis" had cropped its ugly head -- gasoline in Texas was a little over ten cents per gallon (but remember: a dime was 1/10 of an ounce of silver, "worth" around 3.00 in funny money today -- it is the befuddlement and theft by predators of state that accounts for the difference in the report of value). Everything comes out of the earth and will eventually return to the earth. As Locke put it, man mixes his labor (energy) with resources given him by nature to produce a product and/or a service. As you illustrated, an ounce of gold has no value other than its representation of a quantity of energy. I could come to you and offer to cut your grass and clean out your garage in exchange for your repairing of my automobile, presuming you had the tools and the know-how, and presuming we agreed that would amount to a mutually satisfactory exchange of value -- and presuming my auto was in need of repair at that time and place. Gold and silver have been used since the beginning of recorded history to make transactions more accommodating: I might cut your grass and clean out your garage for an ounce of gold, which is about what a professional repairman might charge at a later time whenever and wherever I needed my auto repaired. You and Harry Browne are right: government does not work. But agents thereof have one superb skill unequaled in the marketplace: obfuscation. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "For tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his owne petar". Absolute agreement! Go in with a pleasant smile and the announcement: "I stand firmly with not-guilty verdicts for all defendants!" Sam
  • sscharliem's picture
    sscharliem 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Ok, so it's a given that you will be forced into jury duty - so if it's some victimless crime, BS IRS cases, or violation of a statute, just vote "not guilty" !! And the more guilty the defendant appears to be, the funnier it is when you say "NOT GUILTY." So why try to get out of jury duty, do something constructive with it.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Some of what you say I have to agree with. No argument, no debate needed. I do resent your attack on the brave young men and women who are serving and getting murdered by radically insane middel eastern countries and even here American citizens taking up the same radically insane Muslim group. Attack politicians or other radical groups, but I believe you have no right to do verbal violance against the men and women serving for what they believe in. Your words are just as much a violent aggresion as pointing a firearm at someone and shooting them. You claim to be a libertarian, but your article seems to reflect something other than. You seem to believe everyone should think the same as you and this smacks of being somewhat tyrannical. I think maybe you took your facts and then reacted emotionally to them to press or impress an agenda that you believe in just as terroist believe in their cause. Do you honestly believe terroist care about what you believe? Witn all due respect, next time please leave the innocent grunts and jar heads out of your arguments.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Regarding the concern of two individuals fighting it out. Individuals have fights. We have had government for centuries and it still has not prevented this. The government only pretends to solve the problem. Governments have wars. Without government there would be no wars. Wars only happen between governments. Government solve problems using violence. It is their only tool. 1. I do not subscribe to the The Tyranny of the Obligation. http://zerogov.com/?p=2575 I need no excuse for my claim of an obligation, because my obligation is not backed by aggression, it is backed by reason. And so I have to respectfully disagree with those who believe that this is merely a difference of opinion or difference in a Point Of View. 2. The "central bank" is not a real bank. Everything about it is permeated with government power. At the heart of the financial and monetary system of a nation that is supposed to be an exemplar of free markets is a government money-bureau. If one reads the post I made starting with an *asterisk See http://www.strike-the-root.com/if-cops-cant-taze-pregnant-woman-terroris... I address this issue without requiring anything Utopian-- such as attempting to force people or even Oligarchs to be good via a coercive monopoly. 'Central Banks' Are Not Banks http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff364.html 3. As for speaking "personally" I *Ask as an individual--what a person would do*? " without roping me into his solution as an involuntary slave. And the Russians and Icelanders and Iranians have answered WITHOUT roping each other or me into being involuntary slaves !! Without a belief in govt, communities would [have been and are] almost certainly develop[ing] rules which at first glance would resemble what are now called “laws’. But there would be a fundamental difference. http://www.strike-the-root.com/if-cops-cant-taze-pregnant-woman-terroris...
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    How to be free in an UNfree world has not been rooted out. Whether it's "Iranian sailors helping scare off armed pirates who attacked an American cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman..." http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread843897/pg1 Or ICELAND - No news from Iceland?… why? How come we hear everything that happens in Egypt but no news about what’s happening in Iceland? In Iceland, *the people have made the government resign*...it was decided to not pay the debt that the banks created with Great Britain and Holland due to their bad financial [government] politics and a public assembly has been created to rewrite the constitution. *And all of this in a peaceful way. A whole revolution against the powers that have created the current global crisis*. This is why there hasn’t been any publicity during the last two years: What would happen if the rest of the EU citizens took this as an example? What would happen if the US citizens took this as an example? Have we been informed of this through the media? Has any political program in radio or TV commented on this? No! The Icelandic people have been able to show that there is a way to beat the system and has given a democracy lesson to the world! http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread842279/pg1 And the government of Iceland is STILL consigned to the ashcan of history...
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    One has to wonder where was the US Navy and its drone and troll squadrons? Where were its legions of agent provocateurs and quislings and the long arm of its master banksters and economic hitmen? Quantum of Suffering: Economic Hitmen Target Main Street http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w152.html How could the Russians be allowed to think let alone act out [SARC Intended] that the role of the police “is to control situations and to control the people rather than help them,” As a result, people “turn to their neighbors and to relatives and local networks to solve their problems by themselves…. [I]n Russia we have thousands of such cases.” Not only have they adopted direct alternatives but the state has been forced to concede de facto and de jure that local private security is far superior. A possible difference between Russia and America begins to emerge... Totalitarianism is based on the assumption that human nature can be permanently altered through the systematic application of state terrorism. Lenin described his regime as a “scientific dictatorship” exercising “power without limit, resting directly on force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules.” Within a generation or two, Lenin believed, his dictatorship would beget a new creature – homo sovieticus, the selfless, state-focused New Soviet Man. The gulag state would act as an alembic, refining troublesome individualism out of the species, even if this meant pitilessly liquidating millions of specimens regarded as unsuitable for the collectivist future. Things didn’t quite work out that way. Communism wasn’t a scientific doctrine for the perfection of the human species; it was, in R.J.Rummel’s phrase, a “plague of power.” After the Hammer and Sickle was furled in 1991, the plague of ideological Communism mutated into form of state gangsterism [supposedly] *incapable* of reproducing itself beyond Russia’s borders. The Party Nomenklatura abandoned the conceit that they were History’s infallible vanguard, and settled into a very comfortable new role as Russia’s crony capitalist oligarchy. ...What the neocon logic comes down to is this: The US has a moral responsibility to run the world. But the citizens are too stupid to understand this. That's why we can't use democratic institutions like Congress in this ambition. We must use the executive power of the presidency. It must have total control over foreign affairs, and never bow to Congressional carping. Once this point is conceded, the game is over. The demands of a centralized and all-powerful presidency and its interventionist foreign policy are ideologically reinforcing. One needs the other. If the presidency is supreme in global affairs, it will be supreme in domestic affairs. If it is supreme at home, there will be no states' rights, no absolute property rights, no true liberty from government oppression. The continued centralization of government in the presidency represents the end of America and its civilization. A key part of the theory of presidential supremacy in foreign affairs is the idea that politics stops at the water's edge. If you believe that, you have given up everything. It means that foreign affairs will continue to be the last refuge of an omnipotent scoundrel. If a president can count on the fact that he won't be criticized so long as he is running a war, he will run more of them. So long as he is running wars, government at home cannot be cut. As Felix Morley said, "Politics can stop at the water's edge only when policies stop at the water's edge." http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/down-presidency.html
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 years 39 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Good point. I'm a prepper and having read this it makes one wonder if it is now worth the effort. Having read a lot of history, I believe the founding fathers were trying to do the best they could for the new Nation. Certainly the Constitution has flaws, but it is better than anything else so far, even South Africa. I shall try to maintain a more positive outlook than this exposition.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    To those enthralled with statism: (Apparently the above posts--nor my prior posts--are welcome at Paul Craig Roberts). The lead in to why MORE freedom NOT more regulations is the answer to "Recovery or Collapse? Bet on Collapse" was provided on page 2 of Paul Craig Robert's comment thread. It addressed the Williams Act…and other legislation against so-called hostile take overs as being basically the CEO Protection Act of 1986. The Repeal of Glass Stegall Banking Act (1933) as a red herring as was the failure to *pro-actively regulate*. Red herrings put out there by those Gaming the System. That lead in addresses why gaming the system would not occur in a truly laissez-faire society (in banking, defense, and security etc) with a refutation to a poster enthralled with statism. The lead in: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/05/20/recovery-or-callapse-bet-on-c... Freedom works. Apparently it is happening in Russia and would have in America but for government--but not for Paul Craig Roberts. Who would have guessed....
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Seeing Into the Future. And seeing the present from there. A short prequel: Libertopia - Larken Rose 10-22-11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnfH8ttsd58 And apparently it is defacto happening in Russia. Who would have guessed....
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I am actually a political atheist (apolitical) and freedom producer not a fighter. There is nothing to fight. Only light will provide the way. Natural laws are objective and compulsory. The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is unobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). ~ Paraphrased from Linda and Morris Tannehill Man's nature to avoid unpleasant things gives him a natural incentive to not associate with anyone who harms him. This gives everyone a natural disincentive to harm others (if they wish to be a functional member of society- if not then let them run to the forest for all I care). If a natural social structure wherein no one is compelled to associate with anyone else, only those who treat each other ethically will gain access to all the benefits that society has to offer. If an offender wishes to regain his good standing in society, he will have a natural incentive to make restitution for his crimes. Otherwise, he faces social ostracism and a significantly lower quality of life or possible starvation. No enforcement is necessary, this is natural to man's tendency to only contract and associate with individuals he trusts. Paraphrased from Vahram G. Diehl. *And this happened here on this journal thread without interference by moral busy bodies and the nanny state*. That is already the world I live in and the one I have set up. I am UNinterested in the rat race matrix or politics. I trade in the division of labor society (now remnant).
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Meanwhile in America and England and Japan (not Argentina) even a person with a normally calibrated moral compass (a non-sociopath) often *cannot see through clouds of propaganda that have been spewed over police officers and politicians and soldiers*. The answer is, quite simply, that the defense of people’s lives and property is a job just like any other, and it ought to be provided on the free market just like every other good and service by people who are held to exactly the same moral standards as the rest of the civilized world. The uneasiness that the *normal person* feels when confronted with the existence of a group of fat blue-polyester-clad thugs who are not bound by normal moral standards is completely understandable and justified. There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to! --The provision of bread and chairs and computers does not require exempting anyone from moral standards, or empowering them to beat people up and order them around. All that is required is to open the door to competition, and people fall over backwards trying to please customers in their quest to make money. The same is just as true of defense services, which can and ought to be opened to competition between private providers so that consumers of these services can choose what kinds of defense services they want to purchase. In that case, the providers of the services can be held to exactly the same moral standards as everyone else. Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property – not to enforce arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on unwilling strangers. See: The Horrific Life of the Police Officer http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli58.1.html
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Supporting that context: In Russia, as elsewhere, the role of the police “is to control situations and to control the people rather than help them,” observes Leonid Kosals, a professor of economics at Moscow’s National Research University. As a result, people “turn to their neighbors and to relatives and local networks to solve their problems by themselves…. [I]n Russia we have thousands of such cases.”
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Hi Sam, Apparently many Russians did come forth: ...“We must give our citizens a chance at survival,” Torshin told the Interfax news agency, insisting that widespread private gun ownership doesn’t lead to “a surge in killings,” but rather “the reduction in street crimes and the murder rate.” What makes Torshin’s stance all the more remarkable is the fact that roughly half a year earlier he had expressed support for banning private possession of “non-lethal” handguns. It’s possible that this dramatic volte-face was the product of a sincere conversion. It’s likelier that Mr. Torshin knew which way the winds of *public outrage* are blowing, and aligned his sails accordingly. In any case, Torshin’s proposal is tangible evidence of a growing -- and thoroughly commendable -- Russian contempt for the very institution of government... During the past decade, the crime rate in the United States has declined, terrorism has been all but nonexistent – and the country has been transformed into a fair approximation of a high-security prison, complete with full-spectrum surveillance of the population and undisguised militarization of “local” police departments. At the same time, the political elite in charge of the former Soviet Union is addressing a legitimate crime crisis by drawing down the police force and recognizing (however tentatively) the right of citizens to armed self-defense. For all of its problems, Russia clearly is no longer the land of Lenin. For all of our advantages, it’s just as clear that the United States of America is no longer the Land of the Free. ... Sunday, September 18, 2011 Abolish the Police, Arm the Citizens: The "Sagra Model" of Privatized Security http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/09/abolish-police-arm-citizens... PS There are more gems in this article (I only touched on a few)... PPS I use this site's threads to post on other sites (info in different order and different excerpts but similar contexts to refute anti-freedom posts). Cheers!
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Here is a gem: "The trend toward privatization of security in Russia is likely to grow as a result of President Medvedev’s recent initiative to reform the country’s militia – *that is, its police force* – by purging about 200,000 officers from the ranks. Sociologist Mikhail Vinogradov, who estimates that *one-third* of Russia’s police force is *composed of alcoholics and psychopaths*, points out that in 1991, the militia was reduced by about thirty percent – and the result was a **sharp reduction in the crime rate**". (Again holding context: It’s possible that this dramatic volte-face was the product of a sincere conversion. It’s likelier that President Medvedev knew which way the winds of *public outrage* are blowing, and aligned his sails accordingly).
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    ...Private security is already a greater bulwark against violent and property crime than many people realize. As of 1997, according to the Economist (as cited by Robert Higgs): There are three times as many private policemen as public ones.... Americans also spend a lot more on private security (about $90 billion a year) than they do, through tax dollars, on the public police ($40 billion). Even the government itself spends more hiring private guards than it does paying for police forces. For a decade and a half, we have had three times as many private guards as public ones, yet it is an oddity indeed to hear about their abuses, unlike those of the police that make the papers every day – and that’s just counting reported offenses. It should be no wonder. As market actors, private security guards are generally heroic defenders of property, commerce and life, and are liable for the wrong they do, unlike the state’s armed agents, who work for an institution of monopoly, theft, kidnapping, rape rooms and murder. Can we really survive without government police? When we consider how much they do to disrupt civil society, it would seem obvious that we can. The police, on balance, are a force for decivilization and disorder. They commit massive violations of person and property. They enforce gun and drug laws that basically create organized crime and breed gang activity. Most of what they do encourages, rather than diminishes, violence. Despite all this, America remains a fairly civilized place. If we survived this long with the police, just imagine how much better off we’d be without them. May 26, 2011 Abolish the Police by Anthony Gregory http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "...It is also worth noting that much of the success of organized crime in our present society is due to alliances which crime bosses are able to make with govt officials in nearly all levels...." As the Tannehill's outlined (and we all know -- I'm preachin' to the choir again), there could be no such thing as "organized crime" without privileges imbued and contributed by a central state apparatus. It would be interesting to speculate how crime itself would virtually disappear in a totally free society after all central states were to have collapsed and dissipated. Will I see that in my remaining 30 or so years? Come forth, Jim Davies. Prohibition of products and services demanded by consenting persons is what brings about "organized crime". As a matter of practical fact you can define "government" as "organized crime" and be done with it. Sam
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    It is also worth noting that much of the success of organized crime in our present society is due to alliances which crime bosses are able to make with govt officials in nearly all levels. From the $50 payoff to the local cop to the $10,000 contribution to a senator’s campaign fund organized crime regularly protects itself by buying off govt opposition. In a laissez-faire society aggressors would not only be scattered but weak and unorganized they would find it next to impossible to buy off free market protection and arbitration agencies. Customers of a defense company don’t have to keep patronizing it if they find out its employees have been accepting payoffs from aggressors.. They are free to do what citizens can never do–find some other agency to protect them. A free market agency could not afford to have under- world connections even with the small and unimportant underworld of a free market…When the news media revealed its shady dealings its customers would desert it… Furthermore customers of a free market defense company are not imbued with a citizen’s patriotic fervor and obedience and thus are much harder to lure into foolish collectivist endeavors (such as national unity). Free men don’t leap like fools and sheep to defend a flag or sacrifice themselves for the cause of politicians. These are some of the ways a free market system differs fundamentally and completely form a govt system of any sort… Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime p111, 114 p115 The Market for Liberty Linda and Morris Tannehill
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime The Market for Liberty Linda and Morris Tannehill http://mises.org/document/6058/The-Market-for-Liberty The whole book deals with difference between govt and free market justice. In fact a would be tyrant’s customers–in a free market–would be an obstacle to him. He could not extract taxes from them, as govt does, he could not even force them to buy his service at all. A market relationship is a free relationship. If a customer does not like a company’s service–(including defensive), or mistrusts its goals, he is free to take his business elsewhere or to start his own competitive service or to do without the service altogether and provide his own. There is a difference between coercive monopolies (govt driven by initiating force and ratcheting fear and power) and free market monopolies (profit motive, supply demand, attracting customers).
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Statists are often afraid of what some individuals will do if not restrained by govt. What they should fear is what those individuals will do if they become govt. The amount of damage which one hostile, malicious authority figure can do by himself is nothing compared to what one hostile, malicious authority figure can do by way of *obedient but otherwise good people*. If evil was committed only by evil people the world would be a far better place than it is today–with basically good people constantly committing evil acts because a perceived authority told them to. Here the statist does not trust his neighbors (others). But trusts them to have the power of a State to do the same things he seeks protection from. Ouch! If a man must inherently be governed by an authority that initiates force, who will govern those who govern? Perhaps the statist thinks he and others–his neighbors that he does not trust–govern his masters? Hopeless.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Here are some of the ways a free market system differs fundamentally and completely from a govt system of any sort.. Govt employees are legally protected from suffering personal consequences as a result of all but the most blatant acts of the aggressive acts which they perpetrate “in the line of duty”. Such functionaries as police officials, judges and revenue agents can initiate force with immunity by taking protection under such cliches as “I don’t write The Law; I just enforce it” or “that’s a matter for a jury to decide” or “this statute was passed by duly elected reps of the people”. But employees of a free market defense company would have no such legal immunity from retaliatory force; they would have to assume responsibility for their actions… Personal conscience plays a huge role in justified defensive force absent the belief and immunity of “just doing my job” authoritarian protection rackets… Without a belief in govt, communities would almost certainly develop rules which at first glance would resemble what are now called “laws’. But there would be a fundamental difference. It is still legitimate to write and publish for all to see statements about consequences of doing certain things. Here is one: instead of *We* hereby make the following illegal, the “warnings would fit into this template ” *I* believe that if you do this, I have the right to respond in this way” The point is not that people will automatically think and behave properly if there are no rulers, but that such malicious tendencies in human beings would be LESS dangerous and destructive without the blind belief in just doing my job obeying authority to legitimize them. Left to their own device people will not try to forcibly impose upon others but avoid violent conflicts. If there is a govt to coercively inflict their values on others they will gladly beg it to do so with no shame…. If every person who made a threat and attempted to enforce the rule had to take personal responsibility and assume the risk himself very few people would be willing to threaten their neighbors. See Larken Rose expand on this and more in his book The Most Dangerous Superstition. An introduction to Larken Rose - Free Your Mind Conference 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCz9gcvMfk&feature=endscreen&NR=1
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Anointed people who must have the authority to murder you for not wearing your seat belt. That is pretty psychotic. Whether it is legal or not means absolutely nothing it is just terms and a trick thieves use to try to get its victims to put up with it. Libertopia 2011 Bill Buppert tete' a tete' w/Larken Rose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKwnig7U9Zk
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 39 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    The Latest Science of Nature Versus Nurture Research on the effects of environment and genetics on personality, brought to you by Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEaehmE6FFg&feature=youtube_gdata At 10 and 15 minutes and 20 minute marks the podcast addresses: How the mind is actually re-wired to be addicted to being extremely abusive--including torture/beatings/murder and political power--and as roughly as addictive as cocaine. One of the reasons why people seek to get it--that stimulation and continue to expand it. Attempts to act out and feel normal by raising and flooding the brain with dopamine (exhibiting behavior because they don't have the words to describe it and the ability (learned) to comfort, self-regulate and self-sooth stress and anxiety). The flooding of dopamine causes lack of empathy, stupid behavior, poor judgement and poor risk assessment. All the things seen by those attracted to political power and fearful of so-called chaos... Yep I would say law enforcers, soldiers and politicians have indeed not internalized the caring parent alter ego.. At 37:09 in the podcast The Fascist High: But too much power and hence too much dopamine-can disrupt normal cognition and emotion, leading to gross errors of judgment and imperviousness to risk, not to mention huge egocentricity and lack of empathy for others. Power corrupts. Not just spiritually. It is a physical thing with the flooding of dopamine (that comes from too much political power).. Most importantly this podcast gives some insights and understanding to the limits of changing minds as it pertains to deeply held beliefs, stress, low dopamine, low endorphins, and flooding of the brains with testosterone and dopamine... .