Recent comments

  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 8 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "why kill, mame and inflame when a simple and civilly conducted arrest or invitation would accomplish the goal of securing the person for a legal hearing?" Well, Waco was long planned by ATF as a flashy venture to impress Congress before a bill extending their funding came up. An ordinary quiet arrest and trial would have been no help to them with that. "And, by the way, why do judges get a free pass on issuing these daft and idiotic warrants?" Because they face no disincentives. And power corrupts, etc. All of this is no surprise to anyone with an understanding of human nature. People work in their own interests (with few scruples about it, too), not for "the common good" despite what the propaganda says.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Guest
    Time for a technical fix - get an offshore VPN and email provider. Let the government monitor an encrypted data stream all they want.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Guest
    So a politician lied to get elected. Surprise, surprise.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 8 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Drakensberg
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 8 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    eugenedw, you wrote "Fail to pay your workers a living wage, and they'll have your head on a platter" in a zero-government society. How, exactly? - I mean, how could such a situation arise? If an employer offered inadequate wages, he'd not get any help. But if he did and got some, that would happen under the terms of a contract, enforcible by free-market courts. If he later reneged and paid less than contracted, the employee could either just quit for a better job, and/or sue him and expect to win. There being no government all money would be honest - most likely, Krugerrands in your part of the world. Nobody could reduce their value, like government cuts the value of its fiat money so as to cause inflation. So if the boss honored his side of the contract, the wage could not fall. In fact on the precedent of the 19th Century, gold money would probably _rise_ a little in purchasing power. Or do you perhaps foresee a gold bonanza, the discovery of a major, rich new vein in the Drakenberg? - that would have an effect, but it would affect everyone in the economy, not just a single skinflint employer.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 8 weeks ago
    ID Theft Growing
    Web link strike
    "You have rights antecedent [prior] to all earthly governments, rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States [Emphasis added] However, as Noah Webster appropriately, (IMO), points out in his 1828 dictionary, "we say, [there is] a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no [formal] objection or opposition is made; [we say there is] a tacit surrender of a part of our natural rights", "when [there is] no [formal] objection or opposition made"...and, unfortunately, complaining[1], particularly to each other, does not count as either of these forms of rebuttal. And, of course, these formal objections and oppositions, must be validated[2] by concurring[3] actions. ______________________________________________________________________________________ [1] COMPLAINING, ppr. Expressing grief, sorrow, or censure; finding fault; murmuring; lamenting; accusing of an offense. [2] validated▸ adjective: declared or made legally valid ("A validated claim") [3] A concurring figure, in geometry, is one which, being laid on another, exactly meets every part of it, or one which corresponds with it in all its parts.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 8 weeks ago
    ID Theft Growing
    Web link strike
    Question: Who forces any of us to use a social security number? I asked that because, if one does not use any of the government chattel numbers, for all intensive purposes, one does not exist. nonperson noun▸someone who a government says does not exist ~ Macmillan Dictionary nonperson▸ noun: a person* regarded as nonexistent and having no rights ~ WordNet *Anyone else catch that, a "nonperson" is "a person"? "...having no rights"? But wait, I thought... “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men... are endowed...with certain unalienable Rights...” "All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property" And, I thought... "natural rights [are] rights which persons[1] [humans] possess by nature: that is, without the intervention of agreement, or in the absence of political and legal institutions. Natural rights are therefore attributable to individuals without distinction of time or place."[2] And, tzo says... "You can have a government, or you can have inalienable rights[3]. Choose one, but then please, do not complain that you do not have the other." And, oh, the tie-in to the article? There can be no "theft" of that which you do not have. ________________________________________ [1] Corporations, which are "persons", do not have natural rights, because they are not "formed by nature"; they are "formed by human laws for purposes of society and government." [2] Andrew Reeve, Professor of Politics, University of Warwick, Coventry, U.K. [3] Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1057 ABRIDGE, v.t. ...2. To lessen; to diminish... 3. To deprive; to cut off from... as to abridge one of his rights, or enjoyments. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language "You have rights antecedent [prior] to all earthly governments, rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States [Emphasis added]
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Un-frickin'-believable. I grew up on a farm myself, and helped with everything from milking cows to slaughtering animals to fighting bush fires. It did me a world of good. Before long, you won't be allowed to breathe anymore before first asking permission from some ignorant bureaucrat.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 8 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    From the article: "Workers unions are a more direct representation of the violence imposed by the left and progressives. Unions have used intimidation to coerce their employers to pay them more than their labor would be valued in a free and open market [.pdf]. Employers have become slaves of workers, and as a result there are fewer workers, because some employers can’t afford to pay the salaries and benefits that the unions have forced them to pay either through “negotiations” or through legislative force." The above may well be true, but there is something to keep in mind here. In a society without government, there will no longer be government structures to protect workers who strike etc. But there will also no longer be any government force to protect employers against their own workers. Fail to pay your workers a living wage, and they'll have your head on a platter. You could possibly appoint hired guns to protect yourself and your property, but so can they (and it may well be more expensive than simply paying your workers a bit more and yourself a bit less). Worker unions will probably still exist, and may well actually have more power than they do now. Thus, rather ironically, my guess is that a government-free society will in some respects be more socialistic than the current one. At least as far as income equality is concerned. In societies with sweat shops and that sort of thing, it is ironically the socialist "people's governments" that in fact keep the repression and exploitation going by preventing or stamping out worker revolts in the name of "keeping public order." The employers on their own, without government help, will not be able to do it and will likely be far more inclined to talk to their workers instead of simply spraying them with water cannons and tear gas. I am not an American, so I am reluctant to make sweeping statements about America, but my guess is that neither the leftwing "progressives" nor the rightwing neocons are interested in socialism as such. They are interested in preserving the status quo in the interest of a small number of privileged people. Obama may well claim that he wants better conditions for workers, but his policies are not achieving that - they are keeping things the same, or indeed making it even worse for employees. Exactly the same thing happens here in South Africa, where we have a nominally leftwing government of corrupt, incompetent parasites who like standing on stages talking about human rights, but in fact do little more than enriching themselves and their cronies. They are all for worker rights until there is a demonstration by workers, at which point they send in gangs of armed thugs to stamp it out. They are all for developing local entrepreneurial activity, until a few people put up small vending businesses in the city center, at which point the armed thugs are once again sent in to destroy these (and, usually, help themselves to the merchandise). So much for government by the people, for the people! Alas, in election after election, the victims of these goons vote them back into power, firmly believing that this time round the outcome will be different.
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    We were "sliding" way, way before 9-11. I was in high school when Richard Nixon declared war on the American people. Sometimes I wonder if he ever realized what a stroke of genius that was.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Maybe this will help us decide. "A U.S. Justice Department report released on November 30 showed that a record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of last year. Of the total, 2.2 million were in prison or jail. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College in London, more people are behind bars in the United States [population 313,412,000 (2012)] than in any other country. China [1,339,724,852 (2010)] ranks second with 1.5 million prisoners, followed by Russia with 870,000. The U.S. incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 people in the highest, followed by 611 in Russia and 547 for St. Kitts and Nevis. In contrast, the incarceration rates in many Western industrial nations range around 100 per 100,000 people."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Perhaps we should look at what a "police state" is before answering?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 8 weeks ago
    ID Theft Growing
    Web link strike
    "An Identity Document (ID) is an official document used to identify yourself. Every country...needs to be able to identify its citizens..." I don't need "an official document...to identify myself"; I already know who I am. Those humans who act as agents of the government do not have the lawful authority to force an ID (identity document) on any one who has not voluntarily submitted his, or her, self to the dominion of the government, i.e. who are not "its citizens", any more than a man can lawfully put a brand or ear-tag on a cow that doesn't belong to him. "Its" is the "possessive form of the pronoun it[1]". [Emphasis added] These individuals are not possessed; they belong to no man, and they especially do not belong to any "it"; they are self-governing, and therefor any "official" identity documentation must originate from their authoritative source, themselves. Anyone who really needs to know who I am need only ask Francis, the old woman across the road, the one who I built a landing and set of stairs for, because she had no safe way into, or out of, her single-wide trailer. I'm fairly certain that she would recognize me. _____________________________ [1] Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition, page 793
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 8 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Or otherwise made examples of.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link strike
    The hipster version of an Airstream™ travel trailer.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    The Not-So-Wild, Wild West [Agorism is a political philosophy founded by Samuel Edward Konkin III that holds as its ultimate goal the bringing about of a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges by means of counter-economics.] In a thorough review of the “West was violent” literature, Bruce Benson (1998) discovered that many historians simply assume that violence was pervasive—even more so than in modern-day America—and then theorize about its likely causes. In addition, some authors assume that the West was very violent and then assert, as Joe Franz does, that “American violence today reflects our frontier heritage” (Franz 1969, qtd. in Benson 1998, 98). Thus, an allegedly violent and stateless society of the nineteenth century is blamed for at least some of the violence in the United States today. In a book-length survey of the “West was violent” literature, historian Roger McGrath echoes Benson’s skepticism about this theory when he writes that “the frontier-was-violent authors are not, for the most part, attempting to prove that the frontier was violent. Rather, they assume that it was violent and then proffer explanations for that alleged violence” (1984, 270). In contrast, an alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved” (1979, 10). ...Terry Anderson and Fred McChesney relate how Thomas Jefferson found that during his time negotiation was the Europeans’ predominant means of acquiring land from Indians (1994, 56). By the twentieth century, some $800 million had been paid for Indian lands. These authors also argue that various factors can alter the incentives for trade, as opposed to waging a war of conquest as a means of acquiring land. One of the most important factors is the existence of a standing army, as opposed to militias, which were used in the American West prior to the War Between the States. On this point, Anderson and McChesney quote Adam Smith, who wrote that “‘[i]n a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman [agorist], predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character.’” (1994, 52). A standing army, according to Anderson and McChesney, “creates a class of professional soldiers whose personal welfare increases with warfare, even if fighting is a negative-sum act for the population as a whole” (52). The change from militia to a standing army took place in the American West immediately upon the conclusion of the War Between the States. The result, say Anderson and McChesney, was that white settlers and railroad corporations were able to socialize the costs of stealing Indian lands by using violence supplied by the U.S. Army. On their own, they were much more likely to negotiate peacefully. Thus, “raid” replaced “trade” in white–Indian relations. Congress even voted in 1871 not to ratify any more Indian treaties, effectively announcing that it no longer sought peaceful relations with the Plains Indians. There is much much more... ** Stateless but not Lawless: Myths of Violence in the Old American West ** Exclusive Interview with Dr Thomas DiLorenzo You will never be able to hear the words, 'Wild West' again without saying to yourself "No, it was not!". *Law and Order did not (and does not) require a Government at all. *The Old West was mostly Peaceful UNTIL the US Government arrived and perpetrated the genocide of the American Indians. *Unlearning what we all have been taught through television and movies; a foundational show. Hosted by Michael McKay. You can read Dr. DiLorenzo's scholarship Here http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_04_dilorenzo.pdf Or here http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803 Or Listen http://www.radiofreemarket.com/archives/stateless-not-lawless-crucial-in... Other References. The Not So Wild, Wild West https://mises.org/daily/4108 Or The Not So Wild, Wild West http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
  • Marc's picture
    Marc 5 years 8 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    "Harnessing American citizens to fulfill labor requirements" sounds Stalinist. What happens to those who aren't thrilled about being harnessed? Perhaps they will spend some time in one of the camps for problem attitudes.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Think
  • Bill St. Clair's picture
    Bill St. Clair 5 years 8 weeks ago
    Discrimination
    Page Paul Bonneau
    If they were my ISP and I received a letter threatening legal action if I reproduced an email that they sent me with no prior agreement of confidentiality, I would copy and post it immediately to my web site, and do what I could to inform as many of their customers as possible of their anti-gun policy. But I can understand if you don't want to have to deal with their lawyers. Also, there usually aren't a lot of choices in ISPs in rural areas. I know their aren't in my area of upstate New York.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    While the modern-day Thirteenth Amendment made "slavery and involuntary servitude" illegal; the Fourteenth Amendment gave each of us the opportunity of "voluntary servitude". "All persons...subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." And, just how a man (homo) becomes a person (persona)[1] "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof", has been pointed out several times, here, at STR. "U.S. Citizens" are those who "have...[voluntarily] submitted themselves to the dominion[2] of [the United States] government..." When did you voluntarily submit yourself to ownership by the United States government? Was there a gun put to your head when you checked the "Yes" box, and signed "Under Penalty of Law," that you were a "U.S. Citizen"? Or, did you check, and sign it, "voluntarily," in order to receive benefits reserved only to Fourteenth Amendment citizens, i.e. United States citizens? What does all this have to do with the article? Well, once upon a time it was only "Negroes [who] might not carry...firearms unless they were licensed so to do," but soon, very soon, it will be "all persons", i.e. U.S. citizens, who "might not carry...firearms unless they [are] licensed so to do", because "gun control" isn't just about oppressing P.O.C., it is about controlling EVERY VOLUNTARY MEMBER OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY. An armed citizenry is very difficult to oppress...er-r-r-r-r control. _______________________________________________________________________ [1] 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 [2] Dominion. Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 486 "The persons declared to be citizens are, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject..." ~ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884) [Emphasis added] "...a federal citizen is little more than a ward of the national government. Such second-class citizens must be cared for by the government as they are not the masters of their government, but mere servants to it, and it is the master's responsibility to care for his servants."
  • richyankee's picture
    richyankee 5 years 8 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "In fact, I would say the legislative move in New Hampshire to adopt Vermont-style licenseless concealed carry provisions is now probably dead in the water for any foreseeable future." Well, that is what the cops would like to have accomplished, among other things. I would venture a guess that there is a large number of people who will not come to heel, and that acts like this murderous assault are as likely to convince more to that position. That is not what those who would be master want to accomplish. A few (more than a few) years ago, the Hudson police shot a man in his bed during a 'drug raid' (wife and children present at the time). They managed to come up with a remnant of one joint (a roach). In their proud tradition of protecting people from heinous druglords, they forgot that they could have walked up to him in broad daylight, in public and invited him (with force if necessary) to visit them at the police station while they searched hi vast drug empire (provided they could get a warrant - which they had, if I remember correctly). The question is (and this has been asked a thousand times - for example when the Branch Davidian compound was torched in favor of asking Koresh in for a hearing, which he, according to his history, would have enjoyed) - why kill, mame and inflame when a simple and civilly conducted arrest or invitation would accomplish the goal of securing the person for a legal hearing? And, by the way, why do judges get a free pass on issuing these daft and idiotic warrants? Maybe they haven't finished 'teaching' us a lesson yet. The kids used to call them pigs. I get it. Incidentally, I would pay to see them befouling themselves, preferably in public.
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I object to the repeated (and repeated) phrase "emotionally disturbed." The police are not gods. They have no way of knowing before the beating/Tasering/shooting whether a civilian is emotionally disturbed, or mentally ill, or deaf, or autistic, or, in most cases, innocent or guilty. If they were required and expected to treat each and every one of us like human beings worthy of respect, they wouldn't have to.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    So, you build a house, barn and other outbuildings, and you own the house and buildings, but not the land that it rests upon?
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 5 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    I do believe it's geo-libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism Though, I believe most left-libertarians consider land ownership invalid.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Oops, double post. Sry.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I'm quite familiar with Detroit. Something I always think about when I hear of the frequent violence is, "where do the bullets wind up?" No matter the position on bearing arms-bullets can and do pierce walls and kill and maim completely uninvolved people. I can't blame people for advocating gun control in such circumstances, even though I disagree. It is an angle of the issue I rarely see discussed. Coulter's comments, as usual, were inexplicable-there is certainly no shortage of firearms in the black community....there is, however, thanks to lunatic laws supported by Coulter(last I checked), a high propensity of illegal ownership. This being due to the high proportion of black males with firearm disqualifying convictions. And of course, agism. It would have been totally illegal for Trayvon Martin to be armed, for instance.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 5 years 8 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    The headline is a dramatically wild misrepresentation of what is described in the story-shame on CBS.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I have to disagree with Ann Coulter as quoted by Anthony Gregory here. POC are the main victims of gun violence and it should come as no surprise that their political elites favor disarming them ASAP and by any means necessary. In Detroit, Flint, Benton Harbor, and other predominantly poor and POC majority cities around here there is at least one shooting somewhere every single day and at least one injury or death from gunfire every week. Ms. Coulter's ideas of arming POC still yet further would be a very hard sell for that reason alone IMO.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    It cannot be said too often,"The Government" is only a "legal person"; IT is an "artificial person" created by human laws; IT is incapable of "Lying". It is the men and women who make up this "legal person" that are "Lying to You", the surety for your "artificial person", since persons created by artifice can only communicate with other persons created by artifice. Are you con-fused yet? Good, you are meant to be by those who wish to control you. "In a bad sense, it [artifice] corresponds with trick, or fraud." ~ Noah Webster (c.1828)
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Shadow Boxing
    Page Paul Hein
    Shhh, Paul! You are about to topple their carefully-crafted propaganda about "justice". Why, the Internet should be made illegal for people like you. My word!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "In fact, I would say the legislative move in New Hampshire to adopt Vermont-style licenseless concealed carry provisions is now probably dead in the water for any foreseeable future." Eh, maybe not. Cops may be befouling themselves in anger, but the rest of us have become pretty inured. Some might even be cheering. ;-) The way it looks to me, Mutrie, even if a disagreeable person, has redeemed himself. It's the outsiders who stop tyranny, not the conformists.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    But, then, I may just have Drapetomania. ;)
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    He "lived free" then he died. Just like Carl Drega.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "Unreal. Not only that this robotic zombie regards we “citizens” (which we are not, as Marc Stevens so cogently points out in his book, Adventures in Legal Land) as the property of the government, as if we were mere cattle..." ~ Alex R. Knight III Citizen. ..."Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have...submitted themselves to the dominion* of a government... Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 * Dominion is defined, in that same dictionary, as "perfect control in right of ownership". From this we can see that if you consent to be, or remain, "a member of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have...submitted themselves to the dominion of a government", you are, essentially, their "cattle", i.e. their "human resources". Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32. TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made; a tacit surrender of a part of our natural rights...&c. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language For the record, I do not voluntarily consent to live "under' your 'particular government", or to "surrender' any part of my 'natural rights"; and Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal. Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, [either vi et armis or vi coactus] is not my act.
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Sadly, anyone who actually wants to protect people IS "psychologically unfit" to be a cop, at least in a police state.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Super job, Alex!
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Not sure who gets more PR value out of this, Ted or the Obama Campaign. Maybe both!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Actually, the war on poverty has been wildly successful. It has created a giant jobs program for social workers and bureaucrats. It has turned a segment of the population completely dependent. It has spawned hoards of new problems for government to "fix". It has helped the "Divide and Conquer" strategy. It has almost killed private and church charity. I can't think of a program more successful at its actual aims than this one has been, except perhaps for the War on Some Drugs.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Shadow Boxing
    Page Paul Hein
    Indeed, Dr. Hein. Your writing is wonderful. Frequently, as you obviously know, everyone in the courtroom is on the other team, including the defense, which seeks to minimize the time and trouble you are causing them, by reaching a plea agreement.
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 5 years 9 weeks ago
    The Movement Grows
    Web link Don Stacy
    The first paragraph is a good reminder of the error of trying to build a national libertarian organization. After all, liberalism is inherently antinational. The last issue, too has useful insights. http://mises.org/journals/lf/1984/1984_09-12.pdf
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    As usual, virtually all of the disagreement about whether we can be "free", or not, is hinged on the fact that virtually no one takes the time to define the word "free". We just ass-u-me that the reader knows which one we are referring to. Noah Webster, in the only dictionary he personally edited, gave TWENTY DEFINITIONS for the word "free", the modern day Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition, 15 DEFINITIONS, the Macmillan Dictionary has no less than A DOZEN, and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, SEVENTEEN, and those are only for the word "free" when used as an adjective[1]. If we took the time to first define, each time we use it, what WE MEAN by "free", there might be little, or no, disagreement. For example, if by the word "free", I mean, "Having political independence[2]", which is to say, "I do not consent to be in association with any man-made governments, at this time", would any rational individual dare disagree with me when I state that I am "free"? Now, we can see, (well most of us anyway), why Voltaire reportedly wrote, "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...", and why I spend so much time "defining my terms". Then, of course, one or more of the "less rational", will make some inane statement such as, "Well, there are certainly other definitions for that word, you know!" Yeah, I know, which is precisely why I took the time to show the reader which one I was referring to. Oh, and, in case there is anyone here who hasn't noticed, I love using their own so-called "law dictionaries" against them, for which I am often criticized. ...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Old Noah miscalled it a "noun". [2] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language @ 3a
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Persona non grata: Bread and circuses all over again, eh? :-)
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 9 weeks ago
    The Movement Grows
    Web link Don Stacy
    It is not just the formal libertarian movement that is growing either. Here in South Africa, there is no formal libertarian movement to speak of. And yet, huge numbers of people prefer to "fly under the radar." See this article, for example, published in a local paper today: http://mg.co.za/article/2012-04-13-taxes-force-startups-underground The South African government has taxed itself into a corner. Taxes on alcohol and tobacco have become so prohibitive that a whole new market for illegal cigarettes and booze has been created (and with it, the attendant criminality of such underground markets, and this in a country already suffering from one of the highest crime rates in the world!) Businesses are taxed into the ground, so they either close down or slip underground. Private citizens increasingly hide as much of their income as they can, including even ones who are not opposed to taxation in a general sort of way, but are just fed up with unduly high tax rates, and the way in which most of that money gets wasted or used to enrich the new elite. Rather strangely though, in election after election, the people vote for the same old parties. Not me though. I will not vote again until such time as the option "none of the above" is explicitly on the ballot.
  • Persona non grata's picture
    Persona non grata 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    You are missing the point, the "nearly $1 Trillion a Year" isn't being spent to "fight poverty", rather the aid is used as a form of quid pro quo. Which is all the better at keeping the disaffected great unwashed safely ensconced in cheese doodles, NASCAR and Entertainment Tonight (etal), rather then protesting the US governments theft of their property and liberties.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    You can be free, free from complicity. “How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated[1] with it." ~ Henry David Thoreau The natural right of "freedom of association" gives each of us, individually, the The Right to Ignore the State. "Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If any one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment — a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combination without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw." ____________________________________________ [1] associated adjective connected ~ Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Shadow Boxing
    Page Paul Hein
    “If the people are my adversary, and they pay Mr. Sly, then who pays you, your honor? Can I be guaranteed impartiality when the judge is on the payroll of my accuser?” Those are good questions right there. . . which need to be asked in open court more often.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Again, Sam, you're very generous. I just re-read "Dollar in Peril", and alas that FRN is now lost and gone for ever. You wrote "I don't need their conversion to anarchy and liberty for me to be free. Yet" - and I'm glad you added that "Yet." Might you agree that there are two degrees of freedom, at least; the first we begin to experience the moment it dawns on us that _nobody_ else has the right to run our lives; that their pretended authority is a total bust. Paul Hein has a splendid STRticle out today on one aspect of that kind of freedom; an imaginary defendant punctures the pomposity of a government court. In a real sense, he is free. The enjoyment of that is marred, though (wouldn't you agree?) by the fact that even though they have no _valid_ authority to interfere with us, they do so anyway; by voting, and by everything in the well which voting poisons. To take Paul Hein's example: the defendant was free in the first sense when he realized the court was a fraud; but it put him behind bars anyway. Manifestly, being caged is not being free. My contention therefore is that in order to be properly free and to enjoy all the benefits and pleasures of a free market which many libertarian authors have described, there _must_ be a free society, ie one without government. Once that point is agreed and fixed, one must rationally figure out how to get one, and it should become clear quite quickly that we certainly _do_ need virtually everyone else to accept the principles of anarchism; as "Gulch" reasoned, mere enclaves will not suffice, for they will be snuffed out.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Shadow Boxing
    Page Paul Hein
    "I'd like to cross examine Nebraska, your honor." Superb! You haven't been reading Marc Stevens, have you?
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Sam: "I'm not sure which "ism" it is -- I think perhaps "Agorism" -- that preaches that land cannot be held as "private property", since nobody legitimately had "title" -- it is the providence of "G-d" or some such." It must be some other "ism", Sam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism Agorism is a political philosophy founded by Samuel Edward Konkin III that holds as its ultimate goal the bringing about of a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges by means of counter-economics. Ideology Most agorists consider themselves market anarchists, while some proponents characterize it as a form of left-libertarianism. Agorists generally oppose voting for political candidates and political reform. Instead, agorists stress the importance of alternative strategies rather than politics to achieve a free society. Agorists claim that we can achieve a free society more easily and sooner by employing such alternative methods.[citation needed] Such alternative strategies consist of education, direct action, entrepreneurship, and counter-economics.[citation needed] Agorists advocate promoting awareness of libertarianism and Austrian economics.[citation needed] Best regards, Dennis
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Be safe, brother.