Recent comments

  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 6 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Yesterday's STR front page quote from the late Harry Browne went something like: Agents of state know one tactic and one tactic only. They break your legs, hand you a crutch, then urge you to chant how happy you are "to be an American". This story substantiates Harry. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 6 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Macmillan Dictionary (legalize) verb ▸to make something legal by creating a new law Wow! That's some "victory for freedom", your massa gives you permission to use a naturally occurring herb.
  • Kent McManigal's picture
    Kent McManigal 5 years 6 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    You might appreciate a video I made on this very topic: Theft by any Other Name
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 6 weeks ago Page Leonidas
    I'll give this... "Every time any government agent makes a claim, no matter how innocuous, your default belief should be that the claim is a bald-faced lie until proven otherwise." ~ Leonidas ...ten stars!
  • mcgoverntm's picture
    mcgoverntm 5 years 6 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Interesting story, but there's no date for the martial law exercise. That seems to be a big omission.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 6 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Agreed! Disinformation On Every Front by Paul Craig Roberts PaulCraigRoberts.org http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts346.html
  • Paul the cab Driver's picture
    Paul the cab Driver 5 years 6 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I would be very careful about what the Washington Post says. It has long been a mouthpiece for the establishment.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 6 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Hi Sam, As Dennis Wilson points out: "something better [than the Liberty Amendment] is needed...something that has a COMMON ROOT of everything that each of us considers to be important with regard to *interpersonal relationships*". And that was the *Second Part* of the post I provided prior to Sam's post. Quoting Dennis Wilson in a response to Jim Davies: "I look for those INDIVIDUALS ONLY who have already indicated by word and especially be deed that they are thinking and acting in a manner I can admire and possibly help or support with what I have learned. Minimum requirements for living peacefully amongst other people do not require a person to be "fully rational". Education levels vary enormously as do levels of rationality! The basic or minimum requirement is understanding and adhering to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), a very simple MORAL/ethical concept that is even readily apparent to children. *But sometimes moral statements are not sufficiently explicit or not easily applied to particular situations. Because of varying education levels, understanding the full consequences of moral statements and/or applying them consistently can become problematic. Enter from stage right: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent. [ http://tinyurl.com/Index-to-Covenant-Articles ] *The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a Political statement [ http://tinyurl.com/Political-Statement ] explicitly derived from the Non Aggression Principle, which is a Moral statement. A characteristic of political statements--and a reason why they exist--is that they are more explicit and do not depend as heavily on education level as do moral statements and they are less subject to "interpretations". *Education is a wider, more encompassing thing than is religion (i.e. religion is a subset of a person's education). And education continues throughout an individual's life and is a primary cause of behavior changes during that lifespan. *Free State/county/town movements are examples of people with varying levels of education--and varying religious views--agreeing to conduct their interpersonal relationships by the simple principle of live and let live. Personally, I am disappointed that NONE of the "popular" movements has adopted some EXPLICIT political pledge such as the Covenant provides. The closest thing to a pledge of personal conduct has been the Shire Society which needlessly plagiarized the Covenant and then REMOVED what I consider the most important part for a Free State/county/town movement, the Supersedure section! You, me, Paul Bonneau, Darkcrusade and many (most?) of the contributors to this site--without resolving ANY of our differences--COULD conceivably agree to the entire Covenant and live in close proximity to each other in a "Supersedure Zone" and even trade with each other, without engaging in physical conflict. This is possible because the contents of the Covenant are the COMMON ROOT of everything that each of us considers to be important with regard to interpersonal relationships. AND, as I pointed out in my article [ http://tinyurl.com/Objectivism-to-Agorism ], people who--for whatever reason--refuse to sign the Covenant, could still live amongst us and trade with us, knowing full well what to expect should THEY (the non-signatories or "dissenters") violate our Covenant's Precepts in their dealings with us".'
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 6 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    This thread has turned out to be a classic stirring of libertarians into proposing solutions (they ain't none, friends, IMHO) to "the religious conundrum". If I were in charge of entering a bottom line, I'd word it like this: Presuming there be an all Powerful and all Authoritative Referee in the sky poised to execute a ball toss, I'll tip the ball to Paul Boneau: "...So . . . criticizing religion connects people? If I had a nickel for every time I heard or saw libertarians taking a whack at religion, I’d be a rich man. Hell, some, like Molyneux, spend half their time doing it..." Paul saw the storm a'brewin' and wrote what I consider to be an excellent essay to quell it. I agree totally with his theme on this issue. Then along comes Jim Davies with this essay, written with his intuitive, jocular, persuasive style that I've respected for many years. I'll tip my hat to him, but not the ball. I don't agree with Jim's premise that there is a need to quash or denigrate what we in our arrogance might consider "superstition" -- but he once again displays that perception that stirs the troops into stopping and thinking about just what liberty is. I'll never back away from considering Mr. Davies to be one of my prime mentors on the web just because we disagree on this one little nuance. As Dennis Wilson wrote and Atlas linked: As long as "libertarians" allow themselves to get sidetracked into false issues such as religion, abortion debates, marriage definitions, "illegal" immigrants, Islamic terrorist "threats" and now the North American "Union", they will be successfully diverted from the one, single political issue that has a ghost of a chance of making a difference, The Liberty Amendment I'm not a proponent of political action, but if I thought (against my better judgement) that an unadulterated "Liberty" amendment had the chance of a hayseed in hell of being enacted by agents of state I might utter a rather weak "amen" -- but I would never register with the white man or vote in hopes of bringing it about. Atlas linked this morning to Dennis Wilson's column which reproduced Chris Date's recent essay, "There Is No 'We'" (originally posted in ZEROGOV, a site I think originated with our friend, Jim Davies): The fear of criminals is still rooted in collectivist thought. The fear of the other guy, makes us turn to the other guy. How many criminals are really out there? I’d say about 1% of the human population are actually psychopaths, and capable of real horror. Does this mean we should create an incubator for more psychopaths known as the state? We make more criminals out of our fear of criminals. This ties to today's STR quote by the late Harry Browne (paraphrased): "Agents of state know how to do one thing well: cut off your legs, hand you a crutch, then glow about how thankful you should be to "our troops" for letting you walk again" All I know is this: I want those warmongering bastards hoist with their own petards before they have the opportunity to force my grandsons and great grandsons take the bullet like I was enslaved to take the bullet 60 years ago. Of course now they're also lusting after the girls to train to be murderers: let "our" girls not only get blown to bits, but gang-raped to boot. So whatever it takes to enlighten the masses to Abstain From Beans, count me in. Sam
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 6 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    These complex problems regarding so called preferable behavior have a simple, premised and practical solution. I would suggest "com[ing] back" to this post and progressing and brainstorming that...I refer to DennisLeeWilson's, post on April 02, 2012 "Jim, I understand the "shock" of "being wrong". I thought *I* was wrong once, but luckily I quickly realized that I was in error to think such.... >>"But still, why does it matter?" >>"It matters because the prime task of those wishing to bring a free society about is to move our statist neighbors away from their belief in the need for, and efficacy of, government;..." It DOES NOT matter to me because MY prime task is BEING FREE. [ http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty ] I don't need a "free society" in order to be free. What you are describing is at best, a SECONDARY task for me. I would NEVER reverse the priority of the tasks. MY secondary tasks can never be sacrificed to MY primary task. It is actually not even a secondary task to me, nor a "huge" task. It is an UNnecessary task. See below. >>"This can only happen when our statist friend begins to think straight; ..." >>"It is of paramount importance that people _begin to think straight_. Otherwise, they will never, en masse, ditch their absurd, superstitious belief in government." But THIS (understanding that government is a myth) is ALREADY happening! And it is happening without statists (not MY friend) changing their thinking "en masse". It is happening partly because of other things that YOU have written. >>"We have to change their _mode of thought._" Arrrgghhh. The "WE" thing again. NO! WE do NOT have to change their mode of thought. "Billions of humans making trillions of decisions could never be harnessed or thoroughly theorized by even the most brilliant voluntaryist thinkers or free market economists." Chris Dates [ http://tinyurl.com/There-is-NO-WE ] And, as I point out below, it doesn't matter to me what a man thinks or how straight or convoluted his thinking, as long as he respects MY right to exist as per the five Precepts by which I deal with other humans. I have NO desire whatsoever to meddle with the way most other people think. It is like wrestling with pigs. You ALWAYS get dirty and it only annoys the pig. I spent many hours as a youth attempting just what you recommend--and learning about "pigs". To paraphrase your own statement in Help Wanted, It is futile and a thankless waste of my time "...to try to impose ["MY version of what *I* consider to be rationality"] on people who do not want it and who made their preference lethally clear.". I look for those INDIVIDUALS ONLY who have already indicated by word and especially be deed that they are thinking and acting in a manner I can admire and possibly help or support with what I have learned. Minimum requirements for living peacefully amongst other people do not require a person to be "fully rational". Education levels vary enormously as do levels of rationality! The basic or minimum requirement is understanding and adhering to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), a very simple MORAL/ethical concept that is even readily apparent to children. *But sometimes moral statements are not sufficiently explicit or not easily applied to particular situations. Because of varying education levels, understanding the full consequences of moral statements and/or applying them consistently can become problematic. Enter from stage right: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent. [ http://tinyurl.com/Index-to-Covenant-Articles ] *The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a Political statement [ http://tinyurl.com/Political-Statement ] explicitly derived from the Non Aggression Principle, which is a Moral statement. A characteristic of political statements--and a reason why they exist--is that they are more explicit and do not depend as heavily on education level as do moral statements and they are less subject to "interpretations". *Education is a wider, more encompassing thing than is religion (i.e. religion is a subset of a person's education). And education continues throughout an individual's life and is a primary cause of behavior changes during that lifespan. *Free State/county/town movements are examples of people with varying levels of education--and varying religious views--agreeing to conduct their interpersonal relationships by the simple principle of live and let live. Personally, I am disappointed that NONE of the "popular" movements has adopted some EXPLICIT political pledge such as the Covenant provides. The closest thing to a pledge of personal conduct has been the Shire Society which needlessly plagiarized the Covenant and then REMOVED what I consider the most important part for a Free State/county/town movement, the Supersedure section! You, me, Paul Bonneau, Darkcrusade and many (most?) of the contributors to this site--without resolving ANY of our differences--COULD conceivably agree to the entire Covenant and live in close proximity to each other in a "Supersedure Zone" and even trade with each other, without engaging in physical conflict. This is possible because the contents of the Covenant are the COMMON ROOT of everything that each of us considers to be important with regard to interpersonal relationships. AND, as I pointed out in my article [ http://tinyurl.com/Objectivism-to-Agorism ], people who--for whatever reason--refuse to sign the Covenant, could still live amongst us and trade with us, knowing full well what to expect should THEY (the non-signatories or "dissenters") violate our Covenant's Precepts in their dealings with us. Dennis Lee Wilson Signatory: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent. Undo 'Like this' (3) reply"
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 6 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Two things. Actually three. I and another poster already provided Two links. One: An Article: http://tinyurl.com/First-Cause-article AND Two: A Definition: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html And in a prior post I *excerpted* the definition, which has (three) short supporting paras posted with ** emphasis to what you excerpted in your post...And it would appear you have not read them given your response. I see that you posit circular reasoning as a flaw when in-fact the definition is a http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tautology as already explained and teased out in a prior post. The article is also VERY short, clear and to the point and Dennis Wilson walked thru the issues with Jim Davies....And it looks very favorable...so far. I point that out because that is where I would go back to address any issues (if I was wrestling with this). The article AND definition are in the prior posts on this thread and only a few day old...carried forward from the beginning of this thread. Three: I see no refutation from you on the article nor the definition. No definition of existence as you are using it and how it is different than what I provided nor an article supporting YOUR position and how that is different. Best Regards my friend, AtlasAikido
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 6 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Leave it to Fred to see through the intellectual bamboozlement. Fred and I both cut our eye teeth on sorghum cane stocks -- many, many years ago. Gary North made an astute observation on what I've come to call "intellectual blackmail" in his essay, Why Economists Love the Federal Reserve: I am not saying that the banking system is the only cartel that has Kings-X protection from the economists. One other does: university education. These two exceptions can be explained in terms of the fundamental economic category of individual self-interest. It is not in the self-interest of salaried economists teaching inside the educational cartel to apply the economics of cartels to their employers. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." Every Ph.D.-holding academic has paid a high price for his degree: years of forfeited income, the struggle to master obvious intellectual piffle, tuition fees, textbook fees, and groveling for years to their professors to one degree or another and for one degree or another. Like apprentices in some medieval urban guild, they seek above-market income through entry into a cartel. Once in, they do not want the guild to lose its ability to enforce barriers to entry. To lose this power would be to face free market competition. They have worked too hard for too long to accept this outcome. Academics are, in the language of mainstream economics, rent-seekers. As I said earlier, the arguments over abject intellectualism vs ridiculous religiosity provides an excellent tactic to divide and conquer anarchists and insulate the masses from the anarchist message of freedom -- and the exposure of the illegitimacy of state agents. Keep 'em fighting over "existence vs non-existence" and similar detritus and we won't have to worry about their distracting** our voters from doing their civic duty. Sam ** Well, Suverans2, for some reason I can't get Jim's link to embed. Here it is: http://www.strike-the-root.com/82/davies/davies8.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 6 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day AtlasAikido, Is this what you are referring to as a "definition" of the word existence, my friend? "Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists..." ~ http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html If so, maybe I am "just hopelessly stupid", as you seem to be implying, because to my mind that definitely does not define the word existence, rather it tries to explain the statement "existence exists". If not, please, show me where you have defined that word, I must have missed it.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 5 years 6 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Great point on the quasi-religious devotion surrounding Darwin's theory of evolution, Sam. Fred Reed has a hilarious take on it in his essay "The Metaphysics of Evolution": "My favorite example, which does not reach the level of plausibility, is such artifacts as the tail of a peacock, which obviously make the bird easier to see and eat. So help me, I have several times seen the assertion that females figure that any male who can survive such a horrendous disadvantage must really be tough, and therefore good mating material. The tail increases fitness by decreasing fitness. A Boy Named Sue." Evolution is a dogma in the Church of Darwin. Its disciples have no shame shoehorning sensory-sensual space-time data into their preconceived notions.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 6 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Is this what was done to you? IS the above what passes for intellectual honesty in your book and your reference to "existential willie" in a prior post? And the link you supplied with it? Frankly I am not interested in your unsupported conclusions. Where is the support for your conclusions? You might want to hold yourself to the same standards you attempt to hold others to. Apparently the exceptionalism card works for you. Not for me. If you really don't know what "existence" is perhaps you should tell the strikers here why the definition I clearly already provided does not make sense. And why your definition does! And the same with the article I clearly provided. Best regards, Atlas Aikido Loneliness, Hatred, Reason, Revolution - Freedomain Radio Listener Emails http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfsgCep9INQ
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 6 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Voluntaryist, I've been gone for a time and just saw your response to my simple question, "why"?. What I was getting at back then was the danger of focusing on things I can't control. Your belief system would fit that category. If you espouse a belief that I label in my brilliant, all-knowing, libertarian head as "superstition" I'd make better use of my emotional energy going out and shouting at the north wind in January than I would attempting to "reason" with you to change to conform with what I know is "logical". At least I won't insult or offend the north wind -- she'll just keep a'blowin'. Blowin' is what north winds believe in. I think. If it turns out you're new around here and just testing the libertarian h2o to see if there's any veracity to it, and I ridicule and/or offend you, that will probably cost me my chance to be an example for you in the event you're sincerely trying to achieve what we here at STR think we "have". You'll throw me out with the baby's bath water. Doesn't mean I should be a pansy and fail to speak boldly about what I believe. I believe, for instance, that as long as there are elections in which even a small portion of "eligible voters" participate there will remain ensconced out in the District of Collectivism agents of state ("elected officials" -- presidents, senators, et al.) who will claim the election as their "mandate" to take our sons and daughters to war. In my case it's grandchildren and soon my great grandchildren -- thankfully all 4 of my boys missed being enslaved ("drafted") like happened to me when I was as a dumb kid in the early 50's. Like the blowin' of the wind, that's what agents of state do -- they make up excuses to send "their" young men and women ("citizens") to war. And I've spent 60 years unlearning the killer mentality instilled by my enslavement. Abstain From Beans Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 6 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    Just walk away.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 7 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    I refuse to "play along with the pretense" that that makes sense, though some may think me "just hopelessly stupid". So be it.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 7 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    And thank you, eugenedw, for your astuteness. Beliefs cannot hurt you, or me, or Jim Davies. We all have them, as a matter of fact. Beliefs are what make up each of our unique, individual personalities. Some beliefs might be vestiges from youth that, as I've come to see liberty and libertarianism (I dislike using "ism", but there it is) and anarchy, I've abandoned or modified to certain degrees. But if there is a hallmark in our ideology it has to be openness to each other and prospective "Strikers of the Roots" to believe what they believe in freedom -- without being ridiculed by others of us. What's it to me what you believe as long as you don't commit aggression upon me as a part of your "practice". On the other hand, if you want to be rude and unkind and ridicule beliefs I'll support your "right" (whatever that's supposed to mean) to be so. Come back, White Indian. Sam
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 7 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Some miss the simplest application of logic let alone the excerpted definition and article *I* provided in the prior posts. Not what to think, but how to think IF one wants to work things out for themselves.... Those that say they need a "dictionary" to *exist* and a referent to refer to. But ask what is existence? How does one address a non-entity (they tell us they do not know what existence is)? This is demanding I tell them how they can have their cake and eat it. This is just another variant of what statist and religious supporters do. Replacing one authority with another... Dear Reader, no wonder, no worries, they count on those around them to fill in their blank outs for them. Living in a world, universe, (existence) they cannot intellectually grasp by their own admission--but for their ex post facto stories, quaint little homilies and mixed premises they use in place of non-contradictory thinking.... THANK YOU, Darkcrusade, AND Suverans2 for providing PROOF that Paul Bonneau is right and Jim Davies is wrong regarding the ability--and the need--to convert religious people to rationality. "God" is really the fear of others...(that others will ostracize one for pointing out the emperor (god) has no clothes). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVI4kzoZmy0 Proofs for God Destroyed by a Philosophical Atheist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB4vi6gRM70&feature=relmfu Agnosticism -- The Incomprehensible Halo... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isk6Tf5JyM4&feature=endscreen
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    We will have to introduce Paul to the gun culture. :-) Anything that is called ".38 caliber" is going to be a revolver, usually shooting ".38 S&W Special" ammunition. A ".380" on the other hand, aka ".380 ACP" is an "automatic" (which is a common but poor name for a pistol) but its actual caliber is .355 inches. Maybe he meant a .380 ACP pistol.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    And thank you Samarami, for illustrating my point a second time: if we are going to insist that anarchism has to be atheistic, then we are going to alienate who knows how many potential supporters. Personally I couldn't possible care less what other people believe. Without a state to ram their beliefs down my throat, I am safe from their beliefs, and they are safe from mine. That way we can all live in peace.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 7 weeks ago
    I, Pocket Knife
    Web link Westernerd
    My comment (on Independent Institute comments page): "I am not even angry at the TSA employee. I am angry at the TSA." What futility! The “TSA” doesn’t exist. It is a concept — an abstraction. Only employees — functionaries — OF “TSA” (“Your-Tax-Dollars-At-Work”)exist. Your only hope that I see would be to encourage your fellow jack-knives to Abstain from Beans — assuming pocket knives could become eligible “voters”. Not at all impossible the way “votes” are counted these days. http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_abstainfrombeans.htm Sam Samarami | May 5, 2012 | Reply
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 7 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    eugenedw: sooner or later you run into a creationist. More astounding than that, eugenedw, is the fact that you will find people here on STR who accept "evolution" whole-hog -- without much question. In my mind that takes considerably more "faith" than the acceptance of creationism. Because virtually all "science" and intellectual blackmail that gives rise to the evolution superstition is funded by thieves of state -- in government ("public" ha ha) universities. But the religion controversy in "libertarianism" is a great divide-and-conquer tactic. On that we will have to agree. Keep 'em fighting over religious crap so they don't have time to expose the illegitimacy of state. Good thinkin'. Sam
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    This article is typical of the shallow and sensational style of reporting one finds all over the media nowadays. It doesn't really tell us a thing about what exactly it is that the Egyptians did. Only that because they may have happened to notice a regular pattern, this means they had to have known the exact inner workings of that pattern as well. It is like claiming that since they knew blocks of marble are heavy, they must have understood Newtonian gravity thousands of years before Isaac himself. What does all of this have to do, I wonder, with striking the root of anything?
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago
    I, Pocket Knife
    Web link Westernerd
    They must have all manner of new technology and procedures for finding such things nowadays. The last time I flew at all was in 2002, on a trip from Europe back to South Africa. You were not even allowed to take a nail clipper on board. I had no trouble at all smuggling my pocket knife along, however. But perhaps European security thugs are dumber and/or more lax than current American ones... :-)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 7 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day AtlasAikido, Please define "existence" for us. 1st man: "Assuming, for the moment that existence is a thing rather than the condition, or state, of a thing, where did it come from? What color is it?" 2nd man: "It exists." 1st man: "Okay-y-y-y...assuming it exists, how big is it?" 2nd man: "It exists." 1st man: "Did it have a beginning?" 2nd man: "It exists." 1st man: "Will it some day have an ending?" 2nd man: "It exists." 1st man: "Is my car part of existence?" 2nd man: "Yes, it exists." 1st man: "Did it have a beginning?" 2nd man: "It exists! It exists! It exists! It exists!" 1st man: "Did life have a beginning?" 2nd man: "Life is alive." 1st man: "Yes, I know that 'life is alive', just like I know that things that exist, exist, but did 'life' have a beginning?" 2nd man: "Life is alive. Existence exists." 1st man: "Um-m-m-m, I see. Just one more question. Were you at the Emperor's parade?" ;)
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 7 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    I am not interested in assertions that attempt to use Existence WHILST denying it! Assertions--stolen concepts--that use such are illogical and are not productive nor profitable and certainly not helpful information, or a basis for non-contradictory knowledge or a way of life. But again I was very clear at the outset and thru out this thread that I am not interested in fixing other people's belief that they can use reality to step outside of it. This is an anarchist site and apparently some have rid themselves or never did get infected with "The Most Dangerous Superstition" that Larken Rose so eloquently summed up and expands on in his book. Good for you!!! Not only is anarchy rational but so is atheism. Moving along...(nature to be commanded must be *understood*, you can't have cake and eat it, and so on...). Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies *two corollary axioms*: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness. Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two—existence and consciousness—are axioms YOU cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it. To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence AND the *rule of all knowledge*: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. Existence... http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html Amen!
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Somehow, wherever you go on the web, sooner or later you run into a creationist. But Darkcrusade, assuming that he agrees with the general goal of a stateless society, kind of illustrates the point I made earlier: you do not have to be an atheist to be an anarchist, and if we insist that you have to be, we achieve nothing more than to alienate gazillions of potential supporters.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 5 years 7 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    This is important for perspective. 1) Lack of matter. 2)Lack of matter and energy. 3)Lack of matter, energy and the four large expanding space-time dimensions of the universe. 4)Lack of matter, energy and all ten space-time dimensions of the universe. 5)Lack of any entity,being,existence,dimensionality,activity,or substance whatsoever. Has something come from NO-THING? Effects are not greater than their cause. 1)Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence. 2)The universe began to exist. 3)Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Einstein was startled that his equations pointed to a beginning and to God. He later attempted to re-work his numbers and insinuate an ''Einstein's repulsive force'' which he latter admitted to being the greatest mistake of his life. The Law of Entropy provides confirmation that the universe had a beginning.This well established principal indicates that the energy in the universe is being dissipated,and a time will come when thermal-equilibrium(all locations in the universe manifest the same temperture)will inevitable result and all physical activity will cease.If the universe were eternal this 'heat death' would already have occured.Therefore the Law of Entropy points to the fact that the universe has only been around for a finite period of time. Einstein fought the idea of a beginning.The drive to keep God out of the picture was/is an agenda. “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me … I should like to find a genuine loophole.” ~Arthur Eddington http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html The battle is to protect a certain fragille belief systems,evolutionism(the belief that inorganic material evolves into simple cells and latter into advanced life without any input from a Divine Being). Further the myth of the 'simple cell' is bankrupt. The simplest cell is more complex than a city or the biggest automated factory. It takes information(intelligence)to run the hardware.The software(code/intelligence) is the DNA that tells the hardware(cell) how to function. The cell cannot function without the DNA. The DNA cannot survive outside the cell.For those who understand computers,The computer is hardware and software.Think.(hint-the software requires a programmer,...)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    Suverans2, you bring up some good points and timely quotes in both of the above comments. I'm pleased to see your quotation by tzo from his 2010 essay where he refers to the parasites (my term) who "...assume authority, but also of all the 'citizens' who support the imaginary enterprise..." Because that is what government ("our country", "our-great-nation", et al.) amounts to: an imaginary enterprise -- a religion (from which any of us can become free if we so choose). Due to the narcissistic ego and the bumblefungling [my new word] that accompany all sociopaths who seek election and who collectively have become by far the most gigantic employer(s) on earth (for the most pervasive religion on earth), we can work our way out from under the pestilential scab that is government. I use as an analogy the spectrum of a large Catholic community (or other religious settlement) the likes of which you often find hidden in the hills of almost any part of the earth -- particularly U.S. and most of Europe. You can see the steeple for miles, and if you settle for whatever reason into the community you'll discover abruptly that you are definitely a minority -- especially if you are Israelite. The lives of the entire community center around the church, the parochial school, the priest(s) and nuns, and the general ambience of religiosity. In that situation you quickly recognize that it will be to your distinct advantage to respect the people, their families, their clergy, their way of life. You may even discover means to leverage on their religiosity at times. You will definitely have no respect for their pope or church echelon, but you'll know enough to keep mum about that under most circumstances. Never disrupt the bees without your sting suit on; but better yet leave 'em alone whenever possible. There will be no necessity for you to become a Catholic to enjoy your neighbors and friends. And if it turns out you "are" a Catholic (by birth or youth), once you discover your disunion you can fade away gracefully from religion without antagonizing the troops. A good many of them are half-assed Catholics under the surface anyhow, so it will become you to let them simply assume you're a "backslidden Cat-lik". There is no need to create a scene -- or a target upon your back -- by resigning or "turning in your card" (or burning it at some alter or on the church steps). "Consent-of-the-governed" is an egregious assumption, not a binding principle. By your own example a good many of them may come to want something of what you have. But you will never influence freemen through antagonism. Let them become free of their own will at their own pace. Whenever, wherever you encounter someone seeking liberty, all you can do is present the hand of freedom for them to grasp hold of. They will have to set themselves free -- in their own time. Paul made good points about theft by agents of state. I used the Catholic community analogy, but we all face a much more threatening community of folks next door and up and down the street who have been inundated from infancy into believing in the sanctity of state. Because they can't find it in themselves to recognize state agents -- all state agents -- as thieves. Most of them genuinely believe it is their civic duty to vote -- and in the process they are complicit in the thievery. My only stock in trade is the example I set. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    G'day JD, "All governments must have citizens in order to exist," not employees in the Prosecutor's Office. ″Power [i.e. authority] rests on nothing other than people's consent to submit, and each person who refuses to submit to tyranny reduces it by one two-hundred-and-fifty-millionth, whereas each who compromises [with it] only increases it,″ not employees in the Prosecutor's Office. Now you know who it is that you must get to "resign". Every time you point a finger at someone else there are three fingers pointed back at YOU. "YOU must be the change you want to see in the world." ~ Mahatma Gandhi [Emphasis added] We cannot rightfully ask anyone else to sacrifice, if we, [individually], are not willing to sacrifice.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    G'day Paul Hein, A rhetorical question[1], are you a card-carrying member of the "group calling themselves, not a gang, but a government", in other words, are you a "citizen", i.e. "someone who has the right to ...the legal and social benefits of that country [government] as well as legal obligations toward it[2]"? "Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist." ~ A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government by tzo ″Power [i.e. authority] rests on nothing other than people's consent to submit[3], and each person who refuses to submit to tyranny reduces it by one two-hundred-and-fifty-millionth, whereas each who compromises [with it] only increases it.″ ~ Vladimir Konstantinovich Bukovsky _____________________________________________________________ [1] "A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply." [2] Macmillan Dictionary Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433. ~ Maxim of Law, Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "legal and social benefits = legal obligations [3] "Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their collective capacity, have...submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriot v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109 Submission. A yielding to authority; e.g. a citizen is bound to submit to the law... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1426
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 7 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I predict a big increase in cussing in that town.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Samuel Adams is said to have called it "...the animating contest of freedom..." AN'IMATING, ppr. Giving life; infusing spirit; enlivening. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language I agree, Sam.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Looks like there is inevitably a heavy price to be paid for personal secession. You should one day write up your whole story and post it here, perhaps as exclusive STR article. I'm sure it would be instructive to many of us.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Suffice to say I do not have an identity number or taxpayer identification number. I pay all taxes that I lawfully owe, or freely choose to pay. I work, but I am not "employed". I have never traveled outside the 'COUNTRY', since seceding, but I have flown to Hawaii, and back, once. I have gone to jail, a few times, for not having the STATE's permission (license) to use my own car and truck, I have lost one car to them, and had truck towed and impounded twice, but have managed to get it back. I will answer your questions in more depth privately, if you like. "They can, and have, utterly destroyed [their own] people"; as have virtually all governments, to the best of my knowledge; but some are admittedly far worse than others.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    So let me get this straight: you have no identity number or social security number, and you do not pay taxes to any state? What kind of job do you do? How do you go about traveling to other countries if you wish to do so? What do you produce as driver's license if you get pulled over on the highway? As for the gang of thugs and robber barons in charge of South Africa, our one saving grace is their utter incompetence. But I wouldn't go out of my way to mess with them. They can, and have, utterly destroyed people.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 5 years 7 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    And people will *still* be agitating for NHS-style healthcare in the US. . . (I'm sorry, you smoke cigarettes, I can't treat your completely unrelated illness)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    G'day eugenedw, Yes, I have "successfully seceded individually". I am not associated with any man-made government at this time. In answer to your second question, "how did you go about it?"; how did the colonists here on the North American continent go about seceding from their government? They didn't ask permission, they simply served notice[1] of withdrawal from membership in the government. And, since I am here on the North American continent I use their notice of secession, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, more commonly called as Declaration of Independence, as my template. Here is my introduction to Individual Secession. And, here is my Notice of Secession. I would warn you, however, that just because one withdraws from membership in a gang, it does not mean that gang members cannot, or will not, murder that individual. Not having knowledge of what the government of South Africa is like, I give no recommendation for you to secede from that government; that is up to YOU, and you alone, to decide. In some cases expatriation may be a safer 'first step'. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT - NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist." ~ A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government by tzo
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, I'm sure that is what all of us here already do. But if the Mafia has enough power so that without their paperwork, I cannot get a job or open a bank account or travel, then I have no choice but to go apply for the paperwork. Or become a hunter-gatherer, an option I did seriously consider in my youth.
  • Persona non grata's picture
    Persona non grata 5 years 7 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    Is that the Hippocratic Oath or the hypocritic oath? The decline of Western Civilization continues.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 7 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Pseudo science--the appearance or pretense of science is based on the quick sand of wish and whim instead of the hard rock of reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition Apparently some are attempting to ride on the coat tails of those that have been successful using science. The credibility of science is based on reason not wishes based on superstition (not in contact with reality). Logic is based on the non-contradictory identification of reality using reason. The following may be of value to others who are still mentally wrestling with the deliberate misdirections (i.e. lies) that the culture surrounding us has pounded into each of us since our birth. http://tinyurl.com/First-Cause-article Objectivist Newsletter-Vol 1, No 5, May 1962, page 19--The "First Cause" article Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is God? ...
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    To quit an organization, you say "I quit." Does it matter if the organization does not accept your resignation? If they insist you are a weevil, do you believe them? If the mafia controls the blocks around your house, does that make you part of the mafia if you don't want to join? Even if you make your payments under threat of violence? Even though you travel across "their" territory because you have paid the requisite extortion and have their permission? Would you really worry about asking the mafia for the proper paperwork so they could officially recognize you as a non-member? Simply tell yourself you're done, stop voluntarily participating with the organization, interact with it only when it is prudent to do so for your own safety, and do your best to live outside of its influence. When enough people actually make that simple little mental shift, things will change.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    I don't know much about Britain, but I am going to assume that just as here in South Africa, cigarettes are heavily taxed, ostensibly to help pay for the costs of treating patients with smoking-related diseases. Can we assume that if such patients will no longer receive treatment, that the state will also cease the taxation of tobacco? Yes, it's a rhetorical question... :-)
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    From the article: "The Taliban said it was in response to Obama's visit and to the strategic partnership deal he signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a pact that sets out a long-term U.S. role after most foreign combat troops leave by the end of 2014." --It is rather unlikely that Karzai will manage to hang on to power after the American troops leave. Surely Obama knows this? Then what is all this blather about signing long-term deals? A bit of early electioneering perhaps?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Yes there are in Michigan, and the laws are so screwed up. Any pocket knife with a blade over 3 inches can get one a term up to fifteen years if the prosecutor can prove intent to harm, also the same for a steletto, dirk, or dager or any double edged knife. Fortunately at this time there is a bill in the House of Representatives to gut this 1927 law, but there will still be stipulations I am sure. When my son was arrested he had no idea the knife was in the car. There is a whole whorle of information surrounding this event I'll not get into, but my son still had to plead guilt to the charge and got probation for 6 months and loss of hunting privilages for 3 years. This was when he was 17. The prosecutor according to the attorney we hired said he wanted him for the full 15 years, but with the information I was able to provide proof he knew nothing about the knife and the rational behind it, the judge informed the prosecutor that he was being overly zelous in his attempt at 15 years. Thanks for your concern, Glock 27
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, let me ask you this: have YOU successfully seceded individually? If so, how did you go about it? Perhaps you should put an e-book about it online. As for The Matrix, it was indeed a wonderfully perceptive film, with stacks of highly quotable quotes. Pity about the two dreadful sequels. :-)
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Spencer may well be right, but I see little in the way of practical advice there. I cannot go to the South African department of internal affairs and announce that I wish to renounce citizenship. At least, I don't think it would work. And if it did? I would then no longer be on the radar, to some extent. I'd still be required to pay taxes, as resident, though it may be easier to dodge them if my name is no longer on their records. However, I would also no longer be able to get a job, or open a bank account, or get a driver's license, or study at a university, or travel out of the country, etc. etc. etc. We regularly have such cases here: our department of internal affairs is one of the most corrupt and incompetent of the entire government, and simply through mess-ups with paper work, every now and then someone becomes a non-person who cannot get hold of an ID document or birth certificate. Such people have their entire lives destroyed, sometimes for months or years on end, as they struggle to get hold of the necessary documents. Some years ago, there was a big brouhaha over it when one man got so desperate that he threatened the bureaucrats with a gun. They then very quickly produced his papers, and he is now finally a legal citizen - in prison. I'm getting too cynical here; lemme stop. :-)