Recent comments

As I see it, this whole "Chick-fil-A "controversy" falls under what Daily Bell has been calling "dominant social theme" -- but in this case I suspect the result is totally opposite of its intended purpose. Chick-fil-A will enjoy a marvelous expansion of business thanks to media coverage of all this falderal. I, for one, will bike out at least once for lunch; and if I like eating there (even tho it's hardly kosher) I'll patronize them often if they build closer to where I live. I would use the term "ultra covert dominant social theme" when it comes to the whole sexual "orientation" phenomenon -- the idea that a homosexual is no more responsible for his or her sexual "orientation" than I am for my skin color or my genetics (or my sex for that matter). So the white man must enact a bunch of his famous "laws" to make certain everyone within what he claims to be his jurisdiction accepts that ridiculous equality premise without question. As an educator I've watched The-Theory-Of-Evolution (and its equally bizarre "Creationism" counter thesis) used to legitimize agents claiming to be "state" supplant the family as the cogent governing unit. The sexual "orientation" meme has fit nicely (albeit clumsily for anybody with at least 1/3 of a brain) into that agenda. The idea: Your children are now OUR children. You can go back hundreds of years in history to see the development of government ("public" ha ha) schools designed to make that condition unassailable in the minds of the unwashed masses. "Free" education. Yip-eee! But the "theory" leaves out obvious questions: sexuality being a minor one. Human kind is to be portrayed as "the highest form of the animal kingdom". But the human being does not fit into the animal kingdom. The human newborn is unique among living beings in that it is entirely dependent upon adult supervision and care for a number of years. Therefore, human parentage is the only viable governing system. The human being is not born with what "science" has come to identify as "instinct". There are many attempts to attribute certain human reflexes to "instinct", but in the end only animals are shown to have instinct. All human knowledge has to come from learning -- some from education by others, some from empirical experience. Human sexuality also flies in the face of the "theory of evolution". I could go into detail. But other than the male being fitted with a penis and the female with a uterus, there is no direct comparison. And don't go to "public" educators for answers beyond HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy prevention -- they'll show you videos of doggies and horsies "doin' it", and claim to have given you a good sex education when all they've accomplished is the same as all other political action: obfuscation. But it's all for a good cause: to teach you to love your country and to understand that this is a nation of laws and not men. Email me and I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Sam

Nothing to forgive, Glock27. "As you are, I once was..." We push with statements, we lead with questions. That being true, here is my first question. You wrote: "When two or more people come together for for a united purpose there will be a formal or informal declaration on purpose. This declaration of purpose will result in some form of common agreement either understood, or written down. At that moment it becomes binding and freedoms are lost in the content." Even assuming that a "formal declaration" is "some form of common agreement", whom does it become "binding" on, the signatories[1], or their posterity? If you would prefer to discuss this privately, that is fine with me. ______________________________________________________ [1] signatory noun (plural) -ries a person who has signed a document such as a treaty or contract or an organization, state, etc, on whose behalf such a document has been signed

Forgive me gentelmen, but I believe this is nothing more than poppy cock I agree with the statement and also disagree with the statement. When two or more people come together for for a united purpose there will be a formal or informal declaration on purpose. This declaration of purpose will result in some form of common agreement either understood, or written down. At that moment it becomes binding and freedoms are lost in the content. Because like it or not you are bound to the document unless you perfer to be childish about it and take your toys home and not play, all of which you may not have a legal obligation to do. Now the Declaration of Independance was written a long time ago; and agreeably we could or should concede that it was or is a binding document on those individuals at that time and at the expiration of each individual of that agreement would at some point become null and void. Since it has not become null and void, but has become a tradition and cultural investment it seems to bind all generations to that contract--it has evolved into becoming an Axiom. Fir a hand full of people to attempt to divest this document seems to be futile as it persists in being engraved on the conscious of every American citizen. The same reasoning applies to the Constitution. Now, technically the Constitution should protect American Citizens. If it were given a true chance, rather than legislators doing everything possible to subvert and circumvent the Constitution it just might perform as it was written. The legislators, over time, have just gone from hateful to down right nasty when it comes to the Constitution. I am a nubie here and am still learning. So if you want to criticize my comments you are perfectly clear to do so, but at least do it with decency and respect. Hurting my feelings will achieve no end by violating the fundamental creed of libertarianism, anarchism and voluntarism. I believe the Constitution can perform perfectly. It is not the constitution that is the problem, it is the people who circumvent the Constitution, judges who force meaning out of it where it takes a queer style of logic to do so like the recent ruling on obama care. The Constitution was not designed as a Progressive Socialistic Marksest doctrine. I am more than happy to take a Personal Message of education, so if you feel so inclined to do so I would be delighted to hear from you and give serious considerations as to where you believe that i am wrong

Absolutely. If guns should be kept out of the hands of the "mentally ill", all that is needed is to redefine what is "mentally ill". Already in psychiatric circles there are attempts to make opposition to authority a "disorder". As a matter of fact, they call it "Oppositional Defiant Disorder". It only takes a few minor steps to categorize anti-statists under that moniker. And we've already seen that in government circles there was an attempt to classify libertarians as potential terrorists.

"Let not any be alarmed, therefore, at the promulgation of the foregoing doctrine. There are many changes yet to be passed through before it can begin to exercise much influence. Probably a long time will elapse before the right to ignore the state will be generally admitted, even in theory. It will be still longer before it receives legislative recognition. And even then there will be plenty of checks upon the premature exercise of it. A sharp experience will sufficiently instruct those who may too soon abandon legal protection. While, in the majority of men, there is such a love of tried arrangements and so great a dread of experiments that they will probably not act upon this right until long after it is safe to do so." ~ Excerpted from The Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer

I hope nobody missed this video, embedded in the article. It's worth the few minutes to watch. Sam

This should be a surprise to no one. Laws don't exist for the ruling class and its minions.

One of my favorite Thoreau quotes.

Would you be willing to ignore the title of Paul's essay and merely evaluate its content? Even if libertarians and anarchists are special, Paul's point is they would promote liberty more effectively if they didn't think of themselves as the enlightened elite. I don't see that you are disagreeing with the examples and implications of the behaviors that Paul cited. Your disagreement seems to stem from your interpretation of the title of Paul's essay. From his very first paragraph, "Libertarians (and anarchists) like to think of themselves as enlightened beings" Paul is not actually discussing whether or not liberty-minded people ARE special. Rather, he is discussing their actions, which are often unproductive and consistent with FEELING special.

G'day strike, You might like the "sermons" of Santos Bonacci even more.

In all honesty i have no idea as i don't have a google account either. You could try this page as it has the authors email address on it and email him directly. http://www.blogger.com/profile/15149639674145482725

Outstanding! I just sent the link to about 25 friends, half of whom will surely & judgmentally reply that the guy is a "radical hippie". Greatly appreciate this find.

I have no idea what you just said, and I am not clearly convinced you even know. Wow. Could this smack of Trollism? Just askin.

Having been born in the Blue Ridge mountains of NC, I learned, as did we all, by age six to fire a rifle, and by age 8 or so to fire it well. Our skills sustained life, we never went hungry, nor did we know fear, for we were never taught fear. Fear has been used for at least the past 60 years to reshape America into something I struggle to recognize. Had this killer used fire to destroy life, no one would have screamed for a ban on matches. Few fear matches. Because of fear, America has increasingly traded liberty for false security. As Franklin said, such deserve neither liberty nor security and shall have neither. The answer to gun bans IS 1776. NO fear. As for felons, they will obtain whatever they wish to obtain; all the more reason for a well-armed citizenry. I would point to Switzerland as example FOR mandatory gun ownership and training. My brother's friend made a statement that is quite telling: "In our desire to have government become our benefactor and sustainer, we have allowed it to become our taskmaster and overlord. As a result, we have become little more than well-fed, well-entertained slaves to the state. Freedom, as envisioned by our forefathers, is gone." ~ Chuck Baldwin Gone? Not completely. Not here.

Nice to know. Fun site to explore, especially for preppers and the coming storm.

Have the Spooner you are refering to, just haven't gotten around to reading it. I am currently ploding my way through Henry Browne's book "How I Found Freedom in an unfree world"

Great news! Now I'll be able to delete my bookmark for that truly awful website he currently writes for.

"Did someone just make it up, or find it in a dream or the cards, or is it that a divine creator set it in motion?" ~ Glock27 Actually, it might be said that it was "found" using not much more than common sense. "Natural law is that body of rules which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason." ~ Hugo Grotius Perhaps reading Introduction to Natural Law, by Murray M. Rothbard, will help, Glock27. "The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order; and the assertion of the viability of man's reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious." (Excerpted from said treatise.)

Scott. That was a firecracker piece, or cherry bomb of a piece loaded with historical and current event. It was an interesting read, but like most of the stuff I read here one point always seems to be missed, overlooked, forgotten or ignored. What is a real viable and operable solution? I have no disagreement with what you have said here. It's great but it fails to produce a solution. Freedom and Liberty at this point in time is a myth. I really like Samirami. He seems to have it boiled down for himself. How he does it I have no idea, but still, even he offers no wholistic solution either. The only solution I see is a collective effort to agendize A,B,C,D, and etc, but once you collectivize then you have screwed yourself into something you originally had no interest in becoming. Just an observation from an "unwashed mass member" not criticism, just looking for answers.

My solution is I don't fly anymore, so I guess anything off the U.S. continent is severely restricted, or prohibited, but given my age I don't believe I shall miss much. Alynski, in "Rules for Radicals" has a possible solution to most political problems, it's exactly what [p]resident [o]bama is using in conjunction with directions from George Sorous. Some how I believe Sorous really wants to be a part of bring the U.S. down since he has collapsed three other countries. Sorry about the gin, guess you should have had a sticky note somewhere lol.

My condolences. I stopped flying as soon as they started restricting liquids in carry-on baggage. Ill be damned if I'll sit in a hot stuffy plane waiting for a stewardess to condescend to pass out a tiny cup of water. Also, the latest "security" procedures would, I think, cause me to lose my temper completely, which would subject me to charges that could lead to years in prison. Your bottle of gin is symbolic of liberty in America: gone without a trace at the hands of sanctimonious assholes.

If they did, Mark Davis, we would still be free to "rebut the presumption" that we are members, just as we are now.

"...For China and Russia in particular, ever more U.S. bases near their borders threaten to set off new cold wars..." For the Military-industrial complex this is not a threat, but the hope for a dream to come true. A Glazier walking around at night and throwing stones thru windows then going to bed and have a good sleep resting assured that the very next day his business will be booming.

OK, Suverans2, I think I get your picture -- and I suspect this ties in with Jim's thread questioning Tolstoy with anarchy. I am a sovereign state. That declaration is made sincerely, although facetiously at times to arouse the do-it-by-the-book types who seem to think one must make formal declarations of secession (in a state-prescribed manner) to in fact withdraw "citizenship" inflicted by the beast and become truly a sovereign individual. Anybody knows I avoid rules, protocol, policy, regulation, and terms defined by others. I manage to run a small truck business with its ancillary and aggravating permits, licensing, fuel tax reports, weight certifications, and endless inspections (all done by the girls in the office) that must be accomplished to satisfy the white man who claims to "own" and have authority over the highways and byways. And I don't plan to stop trucking just because said white man is a pernicious pain in the ass. Any more than I plan to stop walking in the woods because rattlers and ticks are pains in the ass. A doc in San Antonio once told me I'm now immune after surviving a grievous bite a long ways from help and the venom ran its course through me. But I still wear snake boots to the woods and look carefully before reaching. So in that sense you might accuse me of not being free -- I'm not free to run barefoot in the woods, and I have to take care of embedded ticks soon as possible. And the white man in all his vainglory will always be about -- for my own good, of course. Be free. This might be one of my last posts for quite a time. My internet connection severs today and I'm not replacing it on this old computer. If I buy a new one my kids will have to train me on how to get back online successfully. You've been my trainer on HTML, for which I thank you. Sam