Recent comments

  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 6 years 1 week 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 6 years 1 week 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 6 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    I have come to think of public schools as our greatest enemies.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 6 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    I have come to think of public schools as our greatest enemies.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 6 years 1 week 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 6 years 1 week 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 6 years 1 week 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Sir William Bla...
    With (o)bama anything works, right or wrong, but mostly wrong.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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 6 years 2 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.
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Thank you Sam. I am very familiar with De La Boettie's work. Brilliant suggestion.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Windsor Heights is a small suburb of Des Moines. It is said that if you are not white, driving a Chrysler and voting Republican you will be stopped by funny but dangerously armed clowns in costumes with tin badges as you drive through Windsor Heights. You'd better know what you're doing, 'cause those kids will try to shake you down for anything you have. Then, when you get to "court" down at the county court house you'll be shook down again by a little beady-eyed "judge" who "hears" only Windsor Heights traffic allegations. You will be "found" guilty. All police patrol cars in Windsor Heights bear bumper snickers that say something like: "This Car Paid For By Forfeited Assets". I'm often tempted to ask one of the young guys or gals suited up as "police" if they're proud to wear the overt label of "thief" for all to see. But Mama always admonished me to leave sleeping dogs lie. I came into being just after state predators ended alcohol prohibition. It had occurred to them they could steal more openly and easily ("tax") with less flak if they simply legalized alcohol (the vast majority of "public opinion" [ha ha] agreed). Plus they needed revenue to augment the inflation they were administrating to fund the war they were manipulating "us" into. This was before the gangster Roosevelt discovered he could steal all the gold from "the citizenry", making inflation much more accommodating. The "War-On-Drugs" was genius for the thieves and predators of state. They could steal AND subjugate citizens; many of whom, like sheep to the shearing pen, cheered them on. "Gotta go after them child-molesting drug dealers! Yes sir ree, Bob!" Few indeed could see that "drug dealers" were created and kept in place by government edict. They could "win the drug war" tomorrow by simply letting Walgreens and other merchants market drugs. Never, never try to make sense out of the egregiousness of representatives of monopoly state. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Another excellent "Strike", Serenity! Here's what I recommend: Everybody take 20 or 30 minutes and read this: http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html Then come back and read Sheldon's review of the NY Times column. Étienne de la Boétie wrote this almost 500 years ago, and it still exceeds most of today's writer's assessments of where the problems lie. In my humble opinion. (Humble? -- never heard of it.) Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Entito Sovrano is a true anarchist. I appreciate your "digging him up", Serenity! Too many individuals sentimentally cling to the past. It's hard to give that up. It's not easy to clear the hurdle to anarchy -- even for those who truly want anarchy. I suspect many who talk a good libertarian game secretly fear anarchy. Predators, having ascended to "power", understand this quite well. The Jeffersons and the Hamiltons are only the progenitors to the Obamas and the Bushies. All government is brought about by sociopaths and follows the road to tyranny. All government is exactly like virulent cancer. It matters not at what stage the scourge appears, or how innocuous the first thefts from A to give to B seem. The malignancy of "government" or "the state" will always eventually consume "Our-Great-Nation" or "My-Country-'Tis-Of-Thee". That segment of the populace who have not been mentally prepared to understand what was going on and who have made no preparation for the final consumption will find themselves standing out in streets, wringing hands, hungry, looking for another Bush or Dr Paul or Hamilton or Washington to lead them out of perdition. Sovrano: "...it is said that in previous times, life was generally better for those that appreciate their own liberty and autonomy. Thus, the conservative believes that if we can ‘return’ to the values and institutional structures of that time, we will be able to achieve what they believe to be an ideal state of being..." I'm old. It's easy for me to fondly look back to my youth (before predators of state had even envisioned farm "subsidies" [thievery from A to "give" to B]) -- prior to one of the sociopaths' wars (WWII) -- and to remember when much of the farming was done with horses and single or two row plows and drop-planters and cross-cultivation of row crops (gasoline was extremely scarce until after 1945). The most one efficient farmer could manage was around 100 to 160 acres. Many fed large families on farm revenue from 40 acres. They were the "rich" -- "the 1%" -- during the major ("great") state-bestowed "depressions". Today I am the 1%. Not due to assets, investment or "money" in any banks. But because I see clearly and unmistakeably the anarchist principle: "If it's going to be, it's up to me!" Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Guest
    Your remarks here have stimulated the growth of an idea. I recognize that the representatives, senators, and etc., are merely people with power to harm me in some manner, but I am garnering information to engage the enemy. Although many will deny the governments existance, in reality it does. One person can make a difference. I realize that the course I am about to set upon will, for all intents and purposes, I recognized will be futile, but at least I can feel like I tried to do something and that's write, write and write to reps, sens, bueaucrat heads, committie heads, etc. Thanks Sam.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Years ago I learned: never get into a pissin' match with a woman! Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 2 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "...until I looked at it this way, flag-waving made no sense to me. But the people who attach themselves to these mental landmarks have great difficulty questioning them, even though some might be false or misleading..." Today was interesting for me in light of your essay and this particular thought therein. I love my family. I accept every opportunity to be with them and the grandkids (they have nine -- 9!!!). I'm rather of a "lame-duck", since the older children are now capable to ride herd on the little ones, eliminating much of what had been "grandpa duty". They are caught up in Ron Paul, flags, 4th of July parades and the idea that a good state must be a good thing (now all we need to do is work toward a "good state" -- oxymoron of oxymorons, but whom am I to judge???). They have homeschooling neighbors, the husband of whom is candidate for political office (state senator). Since I'm a "Korean Vet" they dutifully asked me to march along with them in the float all the homeschoolers had worked so diligently to construct for today's parade. I discreetly declined. Dave, my son (6th of my 7 children) knows I oppose the aggrandizement of war and I refuse all endearments bestowed upon "veterans" for the purpose of legitimizing predators of state and their waring agendas. Dave knows that I would never participate in such a spectacle. But he had to ask, knowing I had to decline. Gently. I compromised and drove the shuttle bus to meet them at the parade's terminus, returning them to their van. I fueled the bus and busied myself elsewhere during the parade. Afterward I took them all out for dinner and we enjoyed family time together. I realized, as did my family, that we live in a waring, nationalistic mentality. I can non-caustically side-step involvement. They've been around Dr. Paul enough to know "we" have no business interfering in the internal affairs of foreign political entities. I let them know in no uncertain terms that the US Military is and has always been a threat -- not a contributor -- to peace in this part of the world. Never insult me by thanking me for serving. I served nobody. Sam
  • rita's picture
    rita 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Only men? This is a clear-cut case of sexual discrimination. I want a talking urinal in MY bathroom, too! (Where's the ACLU when you need 'em?)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Guest
    "...I am ballistic over what is happening and I just cannot comprehend within my withering mind how even libertarians and anarchists can sit back and pretend to be so cool about everything that is happening..." For me it is important -- before I allow a thing or an action to overwhelm me -- that I examine that which is causing me concern, and ascertain if it is something I can change. I must not waste energy (like you, I have limited energy left) on entities or actions I do not have the power to change. For example, I can share my thoughts and my feelings and my opinions with you. I cannot change you. If, by examining what I've said, you change and later tell me your life has been improved by that change our conversation brought about, so much the good. I feel I've helped a friend, and in so doing MY life has improved also. Because I feel much better about myself when I know I've said or done something that has improved the life of a friend or neighbor, and feeling better about myself amounts to a life improvement. I, too, often become frustrated. I wish all you guys would just straighten yourselves out and think like I do (just kidding :-]). But to flail away at "the government" is a fools' game and an invitation to depression and grief. Government is an abstraction -- it does not exist. Men and women exist, often claiming "rulership" over the likes of me with the hope I will "voluntarily comply" with their machinations. I have sent no cowardly drone missiles over strange places to do harm to women and children of other lands. I am not responsible for the fact there are many cowards carrying titles and claiming to represent me who will gleefully do so. I will soundly deny culpability for their actions -- I oppose that behavior vehemently. They are not acting in my name. No matter how I slice the cards I'm aware that I am ultimately responsible for my own well-being and my own behavior. No human being claiming a "title" has authority over my life or my actions as long as I refrain from aggressive behavior toward them. I am not responsible for the behavior of others. To expect sanity out of governmentalists would have driven me insane years ago. I avoid allowing myself to bemoan anything done by collectivists, because I cannot reason with that mentality. That would be insanity. I am a sovereign state. Sam
  • Brian Mast's picture
    zygodactyl 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Guest
    Hello Glock 27, I understand and agree with your passion, but voting will not change anything. I trust that you remember how over 90% of the voters opposed the TARP bailout, yet the congress and all but one of the Presidential candidates figuratively flipped us the bird and passed it anyway. It is said that about 50% of the public is receiving a regular government check, so there was never a chance that Ron Paul would ever have become President. But even if he had won; the congress would have blocked his every move, and he probably would have been assassinated. This country is going down! We can only hope that many more people will continue to wake up, and/or for divine intervention if such a thing is possible. Back when I was young and ignorant; I served in the Army for 8 years believing I was defending the U.S. from the Russians during the cold war. There are other military veterans here as well. When Obama first passed the Health Care bill, I read somewhere that veterans do not have to pay for the insurance because all veterans are eligible for a partial VA coverage amount based upon income and whether or not the employer provides health insurance. I verified this information at the VA website and then I enrolled for the sole purpose of avoiding the mandated insurance payments. I do not ever intend to use the government doctors because I don't trust them, and I will not take vaccinations or flu shots ever again. I'm interested in switching to the Primal Diet and natural remedies just as soon as I get away from my travelling job early next year. All we can do is to tactically plan for the worst and hang on the best we can. Brian
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Guest
    I deeply appreciate your reply. Thanks. You have given me a lot to think about here alone. I was raised in West Virginia and parents were democrat. I use to be too, but then switched to republican, then when obama became president I didn't know what to call myself because I have no compassion for the repubs, nor dems. I started calling myself a "Constitutional Patriot" because I believed that if the Constitution were followed as written we would not be in the mess we are. I am just horriably frustrated, I am autistic because when my world changes on me I can't stand it. I guess my fear is that this nation is definitely going to evolve into a Faciest state and americans will be told more of what we shall and shall not do. We will line up at bread lines and be defending our homes from those too lazy to stand in a bread and cheese line. I have over 5000 rounds of ammunition and just this week I bought a Mossberg 930 JM Tactical 12 guage shotgun (semi-auto) Right now I might have about 500 rounds of shotgun shells. I am paranoid. I want to be left alone and these sons-of-bitches will not leave me alone. I have recently committed myself to the fact that I will refuse to give up my arms just because the UN and obama want them. They will have them when the actually pull them from my dead hands. Hell. I don't have that many years left anyway. Excuse my mumbling but I am ballistic over what is happening and I just cannot comprehend within my withering mind how even libertarians and anarchists can sit back and pretend to be so cool about everything that is happening. It makes as much sense to me as putting a Jack Russell terrier in a microwave and setting it on hi. Sorry this isn't a little more intellectual, I am not sure I can talk about the Federal Government in an intellectual manner because they do not conduct themselves in an intellectual or at least common sense manner. I just discovered this so I don't know how much I have been missing and how many people probable think I am a jerk for not responding. Thanks again Sam. I really appreciate you taking the time and effort in trying to sort this nightmare out. (Glock27)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Guest
    Glock27: "...I think what is being missed here is that we now, no longer have a exective branch, nor a legislative branch, nor do we have a judicial branch of government as was once established..." Glock, in order for me to respond with a lesson in anarchy it is necessary to issue a word of caution. When you use the word "we" you are always including some folks who have no desire to be included. Read this article (especially watch the video unless yours are ears that are sensitive to what some consider "bad language"). Here's my reply: You may no longer have an executive branch, nor a legislative branch nor a judicial branch of government. I do. I think there might be one or two or several others on this site who will also acknowledge having those Branches, but I cannot speak for them. They will need to speak for themselves. That's the nature of anarchy. My President is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis. You'd better be thankful to my President. If He were to shirk His responsibilities and allow the earth to stand still for just a short time all the folks on one side would fry and the folks on the other would freeze -- at least as I understand it. But I really don't know that much about it other than hearsay evidence -- having read scientific articles, etc., (many from theft -- "tax" ha ha -- funded universities). And I never "voted" for my President. I think He "voted" for me, but that, too, is totally a mystery to me. I'm not a religious man (at least I'm not "religious" as most folks perceive religion -- but again, I can't speak for "most folks") -- I attend no churches, synagogs, temples or groups of any kind. My Representative does not reside in or around the District of Collectivism...er, Columbia. He is the Chairman of the Committee on photosynthesis. If you think about it, you should probably be thankful to my Representative every time you take a breath of air. But He does not need your "vote". My Judicial Branch judges based upon on Natural Law. As I understand it, that Law was once inscribed upon two tablets of stone and presented as a contract ("constitution", if you will) to a family of people who rejected it and its promise to provide superb rule: government of the President, by the President, and for the people. I'm told the very first politician (translated "serpent" and "satan", but more accurately would be "whispering enchanter" from the original Hebrew) had previously convinced "Their-Founding-Fathers" that they could have government "...of the people, by the people and for the people". The story is encompassed in an all-time best selling Hebrew tomb, the mention of which raises the rankles of not a few on this site. And that decision, my friend, I truly believe was (to quote your last paragraph): "...the clarion call, the trumpets that will bring down the walls of freedom and liberty..." As I said yesterday, the berobed nerds that are venerated by all the serfs as the US "Supreme Court" did not make any "decision" -- they merely ratified a forgone conclusion. They know who supplies the oats for their nose bags. You ain't seen nothin' yet! (I think that was Yogi Berra's favorite). Many, many this next November will figuratively be standing out in the streets, wringing their hands, weeping and moaning, with great hope, awaiting the mummery called "election returns". Neither you nor I need be among them. Political action is a fools' game. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Guest
    The cure in this instance would be as bad as the disease it purports to remedy. How about instead we just abolish all military formations other than local militias entirely?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 3 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Serenity
    THANK YOU, Sam!! It is the first time that this treatise on the law of free men has gotten two ten-star votes.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Guest
    I think what is being missed here is that we now, no longer have a exective branch, nor a legislative branch, nor do we have a judicial branch of government as was once established. Jonah Goldberg in his excellent book "Liberal Facism" points out that the development of Facism in the US developed from the "Social Progressive Agenda" nearly a Century ago into what we have today. I was horriably disheartened when the gereatric SCOTUS retardates turned down most of the Arizona "Imigration Bill", and nearly wept when those morons upheld obamaCare (small "o" used on purpose, as well as a small "p" later on). All of what we are getting is what we have permitted to happen. This is one of the contentions I have when persons bolster the idea of not voting on some moral high grounded principle they have invented. It is my opinion that every libertarian and every anarchist, hobo, bum, poor, bottom class, middle class and etc., must vote regardless of how useless you think it will be. I know these are bitter, nasty words to see for many, but the near future for this country and its limited freedom will soon be gone. With president obama's obama Care act, every American citizen will be required, by law, to buy insurance, and f you fail to do so you will be fined and fined and fined. We have Facism ready to explode in our faces, however, I am less fearful of obamas contender for the position. How many of you want the government looking at your private medical records and making decisions as to whether you should be able to continue treatment. An act of Government Genocide is readying itself to happen and the failure to vote will give greater odds that obama wll be re-elected. If he gets a second ticket to ride the second amendment will be gone. obama can write an executive order to have all firearms confiscated from the American populace. Many of you have issues with the Constitution and the men who wrote it, but now is the time to put those toys away and get serious about the here and now, these battles can be picked up later. If any of us here have any interest in living a free life, to have that liberty we so cherish it is time to set aside the drinking horns and do some very difficult things. If you honestly believe in freedom and the liberty to choose your way of life so do all Americans. Now is the time that at least one of the roots can be stricken and removed. The obamaCare Mandate having been upheld is the clarion call, the trumpets that will bring down the walls of freedom and liberty. I am neither prophet, or seere, but an observer and a listener.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Mark, you certainly did Strike the Root in this comment. I wonder if Sheldon Richman slipped this old Read article in The Freeman to see how many were paying attention. I enjoy Leonard Read as a writer. But he scuffed up the boot on this one. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, I always look forward to your essays. You have the capability to calm the h2o even while stirring up the troops. Flag-wavers, religionists, conservatives, liberals -- none present a threat to us when our own houses are in order. Seems the ambience of libertarianism has to do with presenting our message of liberty without ourselves being rude or unkind or combative. Plenty of time (we hope) for many of those who fit the above categories to turn around and pursue freedom and liberty and put their hands out to us for help. When that occurs I want the hand of our fellowship to be there for them. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Serenity
    Natural Law Submitted by Serenity on Mon, 2012-06-04 01:00 in Anarchism I second the accolation submitted by Suverans2. Spooner had the ability200 odd years ago to truly "strike the root", and I'm a believer in working with the basics when my head gets all confabbed with the stupidity of the day. Example: yesterday's US supreme court "decision" ("foregone conclusion" is the better term, since we all know those berobed nerds know who supplies the oats for their nose bags). "...Honesty, justice, natural law, is usually a very plain and simple matter, easily understood by common minds. Those who desire to know what it is, in any particular case, seldom have to go far to find it. It is true, it must be learned, like any other science. But it is also true that it is very easily learned. Although as illimitable in its applications as the infinite relations and dealings of men with each other, it is, nevertheless, made up of a few simple elementary principles, of the truth and justice of which every ordinary mind has an almost intuitive perception. And almost all men have the same perceptions of what constitutes justice, or of what justice requires, when they understand alike the facts from which their inferences are to be drawn..." Spooner had in his time what platform virtuosos today can only wish for. Thanks, Serenity. And good to see you posting, Suverans2. Sam
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The comment I posted at FEE is copied here: "This raises a whole series of related questions about how you see the nature of government and what you’ve learned, if anything, from our collective experiences with it. I see the ideal government as America’s founders did—in the words attributed to Washington, a “dangerous servant” employing legalized force for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. As such, it is charged with deterring violence and fraud and keeping itself small, limited, and efficient. How can you profess allegiance to peace and nonviolence and at the same time call for so much forcible redistribution?" Indeed Mr. Read, what is the lesson here? When I saw the title I first thought that the article would be a principled stand against the state, but, alas, it is just a utilitarian argument against a bigger state. The state is a monopoly on the use of force, which is institutionalized violence. This barbaric system can not be used for benevolent purposes, as expressed well above, yet you then still fall back on the old canard that it must be used for “preserving individual liberties”. What?! Why? How? We need to set of a system based on tyranny to protect us from tyranny? What is left to “preserve”? Wishing and hoping that somehow, someday, the democratic process will result in high-minded, selfless leaders that won’t be corrupted getting elected to wield this “fire” is utopian, at best; I’d say hopelessly naïve. Throwing out the popular myths about the “Founding Fathers” reinforces my belief in the naivete of that position. When society is organized based on the principles of non-aggression and equal freedom, voluntary institutions must evolve based on competing providers of security, dispute resolution and protection of property rights. Preaching to statists (that the free-market can take care of the needs of society when it comes to food, shelter, health care and all other goods and services) will fall on deaf ears for good reason as long as you insert the Big But (security and judicial services). Free-market principles apply to all goods and services, including “preserving individual liberties”. That’s why it’s a principle. Once you compromise it, all bets are off trying to put the Genie back in the bottle.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    John: "...I'm coming to believe that people learn only when they're willing to learn, and that it's useless or even counterproductive to try to convince them of something they aren't ready to accept..." I'm in full agreement on that score, John. I try to always remember the old childhood jingo-jangle: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    From Dr. Mercola's article: "...I strongly urge you to invest the time to educate yourself about the potential benefits and risks of each vaccine prior to vaccination, and to make educated decisions based on what you conclude is likely to be the best course of action for your child..." As I attempted to analogize from my experience some years ago: "...vaccinations are a lot like snake bites. If you survive the snake bite you may have developed an immunity from venom poisoning. But you'll probably never know for sure, because the learning experience you gained from the snake bite will have taught you to stay out of the woods without snake boots, and you'll never stick your hands into places you can't see clearly." In that sense we might conclude that vaccinations might work, or they might not work. We'll never know for certain. Sam .
  • roark1979's picture
    roark1979 6 years 3 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Dear Paul, The ruling class does not rule without at least tacit popular support. Your neighbor is at least partially responsible for oppression. As far as the "voluntaryists" are concerned on facebook, what aspect of the non-aggression principle have they failed to respect? Is it their inability to communicate why the NAP should be adhered to? Last that I checked, no violence had occurred. I say make 'em feel guilty for wanting others to steal from you for their government cause of the day.