Recent comments

Meanwhile in America and England and Japan (not Argentina) even a person with a normally calibrated moral compass (a non-sociopath) often *cannot see through clouds of propaganda that have been spewed over police officers and politicians and soldiers*. The answer is, quite simply, that the defense of people’s lives and property is a job just like any other, and it ought to be provided on the free market just like every other good and service by people who are held to exactly the same moral standards as the rest of the civilized world. The uneasiness that the *normal person* feels when confronted with the existence of a group of fat blue-polyester-clad thugs who are not bound by normal moral standards is completely understandable and justified. There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to! --The provision of bread and chairs and computers does not require exempting anyone from moral standards, or empowering them to beat people up and order them around. All that is required is to open the door to competition, and people fall over backwards trying to please customers in their quest to make money. The same is just as true of defense services, which can and ought to be opened to competition between private providers so that consumers of these services can choose what kinds of defense services they want to purchase. In that case, the providers of the services can be held to exactly the same moral standards as everyone else. Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property – not to enforce arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on unwilling strangers. See: The Horrific Life of the Police Officer http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli58.1.html

Hi Sam, Apparently many Russians did come forth: ...“We must give our citizens a chance at survival,” Torshin told the Interfax news agency, insisting that widespread private gun ownership doesn’t lead to “a surge in killings,” but rather “the reduction in street crimes and the murder rate.” What makes Torshin’s stance all the more remarkable is the fact that roughly half a year earlier he had expressed support for banning private possession of “non-lethal” handguns. It’s possible that this dramatic volte-face was the product of a sincere conversion. It’s likelier that Mr. Torshin knew which way the winds of *public outrage* are blowing, and aligned his sails accordingly. In any case, Torshin’s proposal is tangible evidence of a growing -- and thoroughly commendable -- Russian contempt for the very institution of government... During the past decade, the crime rate in the United States has declined, terrorism has been all but nonexistent – and the country has been transformed into a fair approximation of a high-security prison, complete with full-spectrum surveillance of the population and undisguised militarization of “local” police departments. At the same time, the political elite in charge of the former Soviet Union is addressing a legitimate crime crisis by drawing down the police force and recognizing (however tentatively) the right of citizens to armed self-defense. For all of its problems, Russia clearly is no longer the land of Lenin. For all of our advantages, it’s just as clear that the United States of America is no longer the Land of the Free. ... Sunday, September 18, 2011 Abolish the Police, Arm the Citizens: The "Sagra Model" of Privatized Security http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/09/abolish-police-arm-citizens... PS There are more gems in this article (I only touched on a few)... PPS I use this site's threads to post on other sites (info in different order and different excerpts but similar contexts to refute anti-freedom posts). Cheers!

...Private security is already a greater bulwark against violent and property crime than many people realize. As of 1997, according to the Economist (as cited by Robert Higgs): There are three times as many private policemen as public ones.... Americans also spend a lot more on private security (about $90 billion a year) than they do, through tax dollars, on the public police ($40 billion). Even the government itself spends more hiring private guards than it does paying for police forces. For a decade and a half, we have had three times as many private guards as public ones, yet it is an oddity indeed to hear about their abuses, unlike those of the police that make the papers every day – and that’s just counting reported offenses. It should be no wonder. As market actors, private security guards are generally heroic defenders of property, commerce and life, and are liable for the wrong they do, unlike the state’s armed agents, who work for an institution of monopoly, theft, kidnapping, rape rooms and murder. Can we really survive without government police? When we consider how much they do to disrupt civil society, it would seem obvious that we can. The police, on balance, are a force for decivilization and disorder. They commit massive violations of person and property. They enforce gun and drug laws that basically create organized crime and breed gang activity. Most of what they do encourages, rather than diminishes, violence. Despite all this, America remains a fairly civilized place. If we survived this long with the police, just imagine how much better off we’d be without them. May 26, 2011 Abolish the Police by Anthony Gregory http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html

It is also worth noting that much of the success of organized crime in our present society is due to alliances which crime bosses are able to make with govt officials in nearly all levels. From the $50 payoff to the local cop to the $10,000 contribution to a senator’s campaign fund organized crime regularly protects itself by buying off govt opposition. In a laissez-faire society aggressors would not only be scattered but weak and unorganized they would find it next to impossible to buy off free market protection and arbitration agencies. Customers of a defense company don’t have to keep patronizing it if they find out its employees have been accepting payoffs from aggressors.. They are free to do what citizens can never do–find some other agency to protect them. A free market agency could not afford to have under- world connections even with the small and unimportant underworld of a free market…When the news media revealed its shady dealings its customers would desert it… Furthermore customers of a free market defense company are not imbued with a citizen’s patriotic fervor and obedience and thus are much harder to lure into foolish collectivist endeavors (such as national unity). Free men don’t leap like fools and sheep to defend a flag or sacrifice themselves for the cause of politicians. These are some of the ways a free market system differs fundamentally and completely form a govt system of any sort… Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime p111, 114 p115 The Market for Liberty Linda and Morris Tannehill

Statists are often afraid of what some individuals will do if not restrained by govt. What they should fear is what those individuals will do if they become govt. The amount of damage which one hostile, malicious authority figure can do by himself is nothing compared to what one hostile, malicious authority figure can do by way of *obedient but otherwise good people*. If evil was committed only by evil people the world would be a far better place than it is today–with basically good people constantly committing evil acts because a perceived authority told them to. Here the statist does not trust his neighbors (others). But trusts them to have the power of a State to do the same things he seeks protection from. Ouch! If a man must inherently be governed by an authority that initiates force, who will govern those who govern? Perhaps the statist thinks he and others–his neighbors that he does not trust–govern his masters? Hopeless.

Anointed people who must have the authority to murder you for not wearing your seat belt. That is pretty psychotic. Whether it is legal or not means absolutely nothing it is just terms and a trick thieves use to try to get its victims to put up with it. Libertopia 2011 Bill Buppert tete' a tete' w/Larken Rose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKwnig7U9Zk

Regarding: Lew Rockwell to Ron Paul Delegates: Consider Skipping the Convention http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/lew-rockwell-to-ron-paul-de... 279. What To Expect at the GOP Convention in Tampa [Tasering if wearing a Ron Paul button...] http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/05/25/279-what-to-expec...

The article is by our old friend and champion Lew Rockwell word-slinger, Gary North. Gary provides a cardinal economic explanation of why a ten buck item can end up at 17,000 frn's (phony bucks) in the absence of a free marketplace and with privilege granted by vultures of state. That's the nature of all monopoly government. Only an unencumbered marketplace can determine the value of a drip pan. That's simple but sound economics. Purchases by agents of state have no correlation to sound economics. Bids are for show only. As Dr North sums it: "...Drip, drip, drip: the solvency of the United States government drips away...." But your use of the term "..government religion.." best describes the quandary: "...Might rattle the cages of a few believers in the government religion..." A number of years ago -- I think it was when I was still in recovery from acute and chronic conservatism -- a great but short-lived rumble occurred in public media over the discovery of an eight buck hammer billed to a government contract for 105.00 or some such inflated figure. How many "cages were rattled"? Some, I'm sure (mine for one), but seemingly (according to us over-avid libertarians) not nearly enough. I try to preach going easy on religionists and Pauliens and Tea Partiers so as not to scare them off before their miracle (they log into STR) takes place. Because "logic" won't phase most of those folks -- it takes a miracle. You had an excellent piece on this a couple months ago. There are lots and lots of "...believers in the government religion..." out there. I strongly suggest anybody who hasn't read (or those who have, reread) Delmar England's "Insanity as the Social Norm" essay. I agree with England that many come to libertarianism with lots of governmentalist detritus and fallacies that need to be shed before graduating to anarchy. But back to religion that is government, take a look at this weekend's political holiday sustained by warmongers of state. How many war reenactments to bolster the serfs' warring mentality will be played out over the land in the next few days? In particular you will see it performed in the picturesque villages that are built around huge churches of this denomination or that. The entire population (or so it will seem) will turn out to watch a platoon of old duffers who've donned moth-eaten wartime costumes so they can march to cemeteries in bittersweet memorial to victims ("our-fallen-heroes") of the violence of politicians. My arms and shoulders still ache from the memory of carrying those old vicious M-1 rifles (they said it was 9.5 pounds stripped, but I'll bet it was 30 or so pounds after a 20 mile march to bivouac with a full 8 round clip. They gain, ya know). After a long and arduous prayer by the local padre, the "troops", in formation, will shoot a bunch of blanks, some kid with a trumpet hiding behind a tree will try to emulate bugle "taps", and they'll all march back home again. None will know why they fought wars in the first place. Unless we tell them. Gently. Sam

Given all the "business opportunities" a reasonably sharp-minded person could find working the border I am inclined to think that only nativist fanatics and utter dullards would be able to restrain themselves from making some money.

Hi Glen, This is probably one of the best columns I've seen addressing this human tragedy. Unfortunately NATO--the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization, a wholly bankrupt, resource poor, fiat rich cabal, can only focus on Iran. The modern Capones meeting in Chicago can only focus on imaginative ways to spread MORE radiation there in the Middle East. Unfortunately we ALL live downwind. The novel/ film "On The Beach" comes to mind. Hats off to you again, Glen. Doug

May 21, 2012 U.S. Military Defeated in Vietnam Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on May 21, 2012 11:37 AM Sociologist Bill Gibson was recorded in 1987 talking about his book on the Vietnam War (The Perfect War: Techno-War in Vietnam). In this video on YouTube, he touches on many interesting aspects of the war, like the myths and delusions of the U.S. military, its leaders and those of the American people. I watched all 10 parts, which is unusual for me. In Part 10, he accurately foretold that, since the delusions had not yet been shattered, the U.S. would again make wars it could not win. These delusions that are a contributing factor to causing folly after folly are culturally rooted and historically-conditioned. There are reasons why Americans over-estimate the importance of technical gadgets of war, look upon other governments as inferior, look upon other peoples as inferior, do not understand foreign systems, separate the world into good guys (Americans) and bad guys (whoever doesn't agree with Americans), refuse to face realities, think that wars can be run like production lines, focus on body counts, kills and statistics, view systems that are different as threats, and on and on. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112430.html

May 23, 2012 The 'Demon'-Haunted Mind of a Law Enforcer Posted by William Grigg on May 23, 2012 11:16 AM http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112602.html

May 22, 2012 Never Forget: The Police Always Make Things Worse Posted by William Grigg on May 22, 2012 01:26 PM http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112540.html http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

Potassium iodate is far superior. Your kids will throw up the iodide. STR site has a spam filter that is stopping me from posting links...

References from # Joseph Mercola, DO, on why there's a war on healthy raw milk. http://lewrockwell.com/mercola/mercola185.html

# Now, as radiation fallout envelops the entire northern hemisphere, there is a distinct possibility that the crisis will move into an *even more critical and dangerous phase*. The radiation has absolutely reached the shores of North America. Water samples from across the continent have tested positive for unsafe levels of radioactivity. The levels exceeded federal drinking water thresholds, known as maximum contaminant levels, or MCL, by as much as 181 times.”This means that the complete ecosystem of the Pacific Ocean is now poisoned with radiation and we aren’t being warned. Samples of milk taken across the United States have shown radiation at levels 2000 percent higher than EPA maximums. The reason that milk is so significant is that it it representative of the entire food supply. Not to mention: The Everyday Drink That Contains Blood, Pus, and Drugs Conventional milk. Joseph Mercola, DO, on why there's a war on healthy raw milk. Yes I stopped drinking the stuff. And yesterday I switched to catfish from the South no more Northern hemisphere salmon...Drinking water from new zealand. And I keep away from products with: Synthetic Alpha Tocopherol Shown to Increase Prostate Cancer Risk. www.lef.org/featured-articles/INFEML_Rebuttal_E_1018.htm

Correction: "The Milgram experiment IS being played [out by agents of the state] using mobile torturing devices (tasers) and exercising the divine right of kings".

Good essay, Glen. I'm convinced it's the kind of thing many of us should be dwelling upon instead of the constant rehashing of how egregious "The-State" is. I've placed an order for a year's supply of curcumin and thank you for introducing it (guess I missed Serenity's article). I use quotes because "The-State" is reification -- it does not exist. Only predators and parasites claiming to represent "The State" exist. And if you're not yet convinced of the evil the entire concept of The State is, Albert Jay Nock made an excellent case almost 80 years ago. It seems that those hyenas called "state" feel duty-bound to create higher and higher hurdles to freedom while urging the shapeless masses to chant slogans to freedom. Then they proceed to engage in suicidal dockets that could get us and our progeny all killed if the spin-off from the likes of Ron Paul don't bring those fools claiming to be "state" down first. I never diss the Paulians, because I got here from being a Goldwaterite in 1964 -- the last time I registered with the white man and "voted". You can run, but you can't hide. I'm not sure (as you alluded) a major move to a different hemisphere is going to spare many. But the links you provided, as well as SHTF (don't have the link handy) and others are good starts. Meanwhile, be sovereign, stay free (quietly), live fast, love hard and die young might be a decent option. Sam

I like to point out to people that the Constitution gives Congress the power of taxation - but it doesn't say how much. They can tax you all they want according to the Constitution. I let the limited Gov't types chew on that.

Pain compliance is torture.

"Commenting about JPMorgan’s loss, President Obama stumbled onto the truth — but didn’t realize it — when he said that, since the taxpayers[1] could be on the hook for large bank mistakes, vigilant regulation is needed. But why are the taxpayers on the hook?" Because they are the ones who voluntarily[2], or ignorantly, remain the chattel[3] property [human resources] of the state. ______________________________________________________________ [1] Taxpayer. One who is subject to a tax on income, regardless of whether he or she pays the tax. I.R.C. § 7701(a)(14) ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1462 Natural persons[a] are subject to the law of nature, i.e. the natural laws of the human world, not the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. [a] NATURAL PERSONS. Such as are formed by nature, as distinguished from artificial persons, or corporations, formed by human laws for purposes of society and government. Wharton. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 1st c. 1891), pg. 802 [2] It is only involuntary when one is not aware that he, or she, can lawfully withdraw from membership in the herd. [3] chattel n. 1. Law An article of movable personal property. 2. A slave. ~ The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, copyright ©2000

Good word, Sam, reification (1846) "it is the error of treating as a concrete thing something which is not concrete, but merely an idea".

As you may have suspected, Suverans2, I purposely paraphrased the late Harry Browne's quotation. Here's the reason: a year or so back I began to study into Delmar England's declaration that insanity IS the social norm. England is hard to read. He writes with a heavy, hard to comprehend hand; and I find myself having to go back and reread sentences and paragraphs and definitions. But after thinking through his themes I came to realize why many people -- even those espousing "libertarianism" -- can never completely cast off the chains of governmentalism. One of England's central themes has to do with reification. If folks can be encouraged to think of "the government" as a living, breathing entity it matters not if they whine and complain, "she" is still "our country" (and whatever "our" leaders say or do must inevitably be for our own good). I always try to avoid usages such as "..the state wants servile obedience..." Not. The state is individuals who do violence at the behest of the servile obedience of those who claim "citizenship" thereto. Sociopathic individuals claiming to represent "The State" want servile obedience. "The government" is good at nothing. Predators who claim "a-mandate-of-the-people" are good at doing harm to "their citizens". Freedom, I think, is in a large part getting my definitions straight so I can think free (or freely for the correctists). Sam

"What was going through the minds of these armed and ready riot police as this toddler stared them down?" Это одно должно быть достаточно легко убить ... если мы сохраним наш ум о нас. (Translate it here)