Recent comments

  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "The "voluntary city" is an oxymoron." It just hasn't happened yet. A few hundred years ago mass franchise democracy had never happened.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    "...all experience hath shown, that men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by [withdrawing, i.e. seceding from the governments] to which they are accustomed." ~ Adapted from the American declaration of independence
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Licensing and government intervention have made New York land sell for as much as $1 million per acre of good soil. But you call that "private property." So why not call a medallion the same? It takes the same regulation of the agricultural city-State (civilization) that creates artificial borders to restrict the free movement about the land that Non-State societies in New York enjoyed for thousands of years. "Our system of private property in land forces landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not...Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of duress. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect starved into working for him and into working as he directs." ~Dr. Ralph Borsodi, This Ugly Civilization (1929)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Capitalists are as bureaucratic and regulatory as the Left. I call it the Mises-Marx axis of evil. The false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism is revealed in a single question: Officer, am I free to gambol* about plain and forest? Marx: Nyet! Mises: Nyet! Both are aggressive supporters of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) Both require enforcing big-government regulation on the land that creates artificial "property" borders to restrict the free movement of free people to live a Non-State society lifeway. ____________________ * The concept of a Non-State society's foraging in the word "gambol" above is further explained in the following passage [my caps]: Why agriculture? In retrospect, it seems odd that it has taken archaeologists and paleontologists so long to begin answering this essential question of human history. What we are today—civilized, city-bound, overpopulated, literate, organized, wealthy, poor, diseased, conquered, and conquerors—is all rooted in the domestication of plants and animals. The advent of farming re-formed humanity. In fact, the question "Why agriculture?" is so vital, lies so close to the core of our being that it probably cannot be asked or answered with complete honesty. Better to settle for calming explanations of the sort Stephen Jay Gould calls "just-so stories." In this case, the core of such stories is the assumption that agriculture was better for us. Its surplus of food allowed the leisure and specialization that made civilization. Its bounty settled, refined, and educated us, freed us from the nasty, mean, brutish, and short existence that was the state of nature, freed us from hunting and gathering. Yet when we think about agriculture, and some people have thought intently about it, the pat story glosses over a fundamental point. This just-so story had to have sprung from the imagination of someone who never hoed a row of corn or rose with the sun for a lifetime of milking cows. GAMBOLING ABOUT PLAIN AND FOREST, hunting and living off the land is fun. Farming is not. That's all one needs to know to begin a rethinking of the issue. The fundamental question was properly phrased by Colin Tudge of the London School of Economics: “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all.” ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.24
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    You may be partially aware of state aggression, but unaware, and perhaps in deliberate denial, that the state is an integral part of the agricultural city-State (civilization.) Civilization's foundation is aggression. The evidence lies in archeology and anthropology. Civilization (agricultural city-Statism) consistently invades and exterminates Non-State societies. The "voluntary city" is an oxymoron.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "Market capitalism isn't free. Agricultural city-States (civilization,) no matter the political flavor, are brutally aggressive. And you're in denial. Probably can't even recognize it, because you're so inured to the constant threat of State violence to protect "rights."" Nonsense, I am fully aware of state aggression which is why I'm a market anarchist.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    Fifteen Minutes that Changed Libertarian Publishing.... http://mises.org/daily/4028 We already saw that the journal would have a unique citation format; that authors would love having their works online; that the time from submission to publication could be significantly lower than that of standard journals; that we had no need to have consecutive page numbering from article to article, or even a need to publish articles in artificial and pointless "issue" groupings; that each article would simply receive an article number and a volume number to uniquely identify it; that we would release not only a PDF but also a Word version, to make it easier for the ideas to be republished; and finally, that everything would be published open and free to the world under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License *(we would make it completely public domain if we were confident that would work; alas, copyright is sticky, and Creative Commons is the best we can do)*. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Copyright is sticky http://blog.mises.org/9240/copyright-is-very-sticky/ Search Mises: Kinsella Attribution:..... MisesWiki talk:Copyrights - Mises Wiki - Ludwig von Mises Institute May 11, 2011 ... Kinsella explains his position here, and the key quote is "the 'Attribution Share Alike' seeks to use one's copyright threat to force others ... wiki.mises.org wiki.mises.org/wiki/MisesWiki_talk:Copyrights clipped from Google - 11/2011 Recursive free information licenses - CC ShareAlike & Copyleft ... The Mises Institute uses Creative Commons Attribution, but without ShareAlike. .... However, as Kinsella points out, in our IP world, ... mises.org mises.org/Community/forums/t/24973.aspx clipped from Google - 11/2011 Copyright is very sticky! January 14, 2009 by Stephan Kinsella ... I tend to think the CC 3.0 Attribution license is the most libertarian–it only requires you to say who wrote it–but most ... blog.mises.org blog.mises.org/9240/copyright-is-very-sticky/ LabeledBlog clipped from Google - 11/2011 Fifteen Minutes that Changed Libertarian Publishing - Stephan ... Mises Daily: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 by Stephan Kinsella ... open and free to the world under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (we would make ... mises.org mises.org/daily/4028 LabeledDaily Articles clipped from Google - 11/2011 Proeprty, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat ... Institute and published under the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0. ... Jörg Guido Hülsmann and Stephan Kinsella. PART ONE: GRATO ANIMO ... mises.org mises.org/books/hulsmann-kinsella_property-freedom-society-2009.pdf clipped from Google - 11/2011 The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright Jul 15, 2010 ... July 15, 2010 by Stephan Kinsella .... Volynets's “Authoright” idea (seem to be similar to Creative Commons-Attribution); Two by IP law professor Eric E. Johnson: ... blog.mises.org blog.mises.org/.../the-creator-endorsed-mark-as-an-alternative-to-copyright/ LabeledBlog clipped from Google - 11/2011 Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes Jun 23, 2011 ... Needless to say, Kinsella is not likely a fan or Reagan. ...... It has to do with the limited right of attribution to authors. ... Etc etc...
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The point is that your market capitalism relies on heavy doses of aggression, just as socialism or communism relies on heavy doses of violence. Market capitalism isn't free. Agricultural city-States (civilization,) no matter the political flavor, are brutally aggressive. And you're in denial. Probably can't even recognize it, because you're so inured to the constant threat of State violence to protect "rights." Market capitalism is a city-Statist prison, just as is communism, that starves people into working. Both are literally a trail of tears. "Our system of private property in land forces landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not...Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of duress. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect starved into working for him and into working as he directs." ~Dr. Ralph Borsodi Our Ugly Civilization [Simon & Schuster, NY (1929)] www.schoolofliving.org/Borsodi/This_Ugly_Civilization.pdf "You’ll know you’re among the people of your culture if the food is all owned, if it’s all under lock and key. But food was once no more owned than the air or the sunshine are owned. No other culture in history has ever put food under lock and key—and putting it there is the cornerstone of your economy, because if the food wasn’t under lock and key, who would work?...As long as the food remains under lock and key, the prison runs itself. The governing that you see is the prisoners governing themselves. They’re allowed to do that and live as they please within the prison." ~Daniel Quinn A Condensation of Daniel Quinn Thought http://www.lejournalmural.be/english-antilibrary/gorilla-1.html
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The point is not that the states at the top of the list are free (they're not in any absolute sense), the point is that the more free market capitalism you have access to the better of you are and the more communism you have the worse off you are. It couldn't be more clear.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    If you want to equate efficient city-Statist aggression as freedom, have at it. I'm not swallowing the Heritage koolaid.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "From the evidence, one could just as easily conclude: "Strict Asian Lockdown culture clearly works." Or, "Empire clearly works." Or, "Economic Hitmen clearly work." Or, kowtowing to the only State in history to use Nuclear Weapons works." No, the economies with the most free economies are all near the top of the list and the ones with the least free economies are at the bottom.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    From the evidence, one could just as easily conclude: "Strict Asian Lockdown culture clearly works." Or, "Empire clearly works." Or, "Economic Hitmen clearly work." Or, kowtowing to the only State in history to use Nuclear Weapons works." Every one of those countries relies on massive amounts of violence to regulate and govern its society's massive amounts of rules. If they do have more freedom, it is only incremental, as one may have more freedom in one prison over another. Yes, some prisons are preferable over others; one would rather live in the Singapore city-State rather than in Pyongyang. Eglin Federal Prison Camp (Club Fed) is more free than San Quentin. But prisons are still prisons. Prisons are designed to restrict freedom. And the Agricultural city-State (civilization) is designed specifically to restrict freedom. Civilization violently invades and occupies Non-State societies and stops them from living in Non-State ways of living, i.e., foraging. The extreme aggression of civilization is documented throughout history.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    If anyone has empirical evidence of a city-dwelling human society (civilization) without State level politics, let me know.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    For all their faults, the economies so the countries at the top of the list are the most free in the world, allowing individuals the greatest latitude in disposing of their property, relative to other countries. More economic freedom will lead to even greater wealth. Freedom clearly works.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Accidental double post.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Nope, of course not.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    So civilization is therefore dependent upon someone having a legal monopoly on force?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    What, exactly, is "free" about Hong Kong or the USA or Europe? All are highly regulated societies with little freedom. Their wealth is gained by being aggressive players. Communism works even less well than capitalism, but the difference between the two political variations of city-Statism is between that of different prisons. Some prisons are preferable, yes. But they're still prisons. No agricultural city-State allows a Non-State society lifestyle. Marx and Mises both agreed on that.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    John T. Kennedy has it nailed, and Elman Service, a leading anthropologist, concurs, as follows: "A true state is distinguished from nonstate societies by the presence of political leaders who maintain a socially approved monopoly on the legal use of legitimate force. In contrast to the situation in bands, tribes, and chiefdoms, individuals in state societies are not permitted personal recourse to force to settle arguments or disputes. Only the government has the legal use of force at its disposal." ~NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf [adapted from Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.] By the way, City-State = Civilization. "The word civilization comes from the Latin civilis, meaning civil, related to the Latin civis, meaning citizen, and civitas, meaning city or city-state." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization "Polis is often translated as city-state." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis Ever wonder why a POLIs (city-state) has POLIce (city-state enforcers) and POLItics as standard POLIcy? Read Jefferson's quote again. City-Statism is the problem. Even deeper, agricultural city-Statism (civilization) is the problem. "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.73
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    "More specifically how does this truck with Kinsella an IP lawyer reserv[ing] IP "rights" he claims do not exist? If he wants an attribution perhaps he has good reason in a division of labor society remnant but embedded in a rat race? " Of course he has a good reason to want his writing attributed to him, but how can you claim rights that you say don't exist? "Do I tell the truth to the wolf at the door?" That was a bogus argument from Kinsella - that he was only notifying people of the law - since under the law he can easily waive all IP rights and put all his blogging in the public domain, which is where he claims is where it belongs.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    Just perusing this thread I came across this "2) Just because there is *not government* enforced IP, does not mean there is no IP, that is an obvious fallacy. If you sign a contract with someone that if their copy of the software you gave them gets out, that they agree to pay a penalty of (for example) $50,000. I think that's pretty powerful incentive not to distribute your IP, and it doesn't need a state to do it". I am not having a problem with this are you? But I am not in this position. Personally I could care less. I would just find sellers that meet my needs. More specifically how does this truck with Kinsella an IP lawyer reserv[ing] IP "rights" he claims do not exist? If he wants an attribution perhaps he has good reason in a division of labor society remnant but embedded in a rat race? Again the context (and I have no idea what his client issues are!) *I live in an unfree world*. Do I tell the truth to the wolf at the door? Does that make me a liar? (Rhetorically speaking, not trying to put myself on the spot) LOL But regarding mind fucks which seems to come to mind--gee I wonder where from? And those too preoccupied with such as evidenced here in the blogsphere link you provided. It is entirely too hard to follow. Looks like those looking for flak and then getting plenty of it thrown around...The nym thing and who is what and so forth on another level is hilarious and true irony of not hacking at the root on a root site no less. http://web.archive.org/web/20070104221959/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... I think you stirred up a hornet's nest and lost credibility with Kinsella. Hmm.... Again perhaps you should pursue Part II of your questions. Which is a repeat of Part I with Kinsella's replies excerpted. Again what are you doing in that arena that's different if at all? And how is it working for you? I missed that in Part II and I am missing that here.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    BZZZZZT!!!! No, but thanks for playing! http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking As you can see from the list at the above link, the freest economies are the richest places in the world and you'll find they are generally the best places to live. On the other hand the last holdouts for communism are the poorest countries and the worst places in the world to live. That's excellent evidence that freer capitalism will lead to even better results.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    "I read Kinsella's response and it seemed reasonable" How is it reasonable for an IP lawyer to reserve IP "rights" he claims do not exist? How is it reasonable for such a lawyer to threaten state violence on behalf of clients to secure rights he claims don't exist? "I am on several projects right now. But by all means press Kinsella if you are unsatisfied. I for one think you should [might want to] apply such questions to your own issues... such as your take on mini-archy." Kinsella is an an anarchist, as am I. He has not wanted converse with me since I caught him spamming my blog with anonymous (he thought) comments: http://web.archive.org/web/20070104221959/http://www.no-treason.com/arch...
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Essentially a government is a legal monopoly of force. Ditto for state.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    Wonderful that Kinsella provides you some hints as to one size does not fit all in the remnants of a division of labor society... I read Kinsella's response and it seemed reasonable--In my words--Just because Ayn Rand did not pay for her taxi ride with silver coins does not mean she was a hippocrit. Kinsella is telling you there is a context and it is? The elephant in the room is the State... Well yeah!! Perhaps you should pursue Part II of your questions. Which is a repeat of Part I with Kinsella's replies excerpted. What are you doing in that arena that's different if at all? And how is it working for you? I missed that in Part II. I am on several projects right now. But by all means press Kinsella if you are unsatisfied. I for one think you should [might want to] apply such questions to your own issues... such as your take on mini-archy. I don't have the link handy. Perhaps I recollect incorrectly but I do not remember if you were merely playing devils advocate or embracing a defense for mini-archy but here is what I would add to that... Here an author who makes another appeal for Truth in Labeling (as called for in the original post of a discussion). And again, he is is NOT disputing your view of government, only what you are or appear to be (mis)calling it. Statism exists on a continuum ranging from TOTAL STATE (Totalitarianism) thru Communism, Fascism, Democracy, "Limited" Republic, mini-statism, micro-statism, nano-statism...but there is no MINARCHY. It is a made-up word that is devoid of sensible meaning! You either have NO government (Anarchy) or you have some government of varying degrees of severity as described above. The general usage of the made-up word "minarchy" refers to some unspecified, presumably small, amount of government. If it means "a few rulers", it means statism of some measure. You cannot have "degrees" of anarchy (min-archy, max-archy, total-archy) because you cannot have degrees of NO GOVERMENT!! Anarchy means NO RULERS! ZERO, ZIP ZILCH.There is no "mini-zero" or "minzero" and there cannot be such.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Define "State." Define "government" (even though you did not use the term, And State = Civilization does not count.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    It's time to start judging the failure of "Free" Market Capitalism with the same honesty as we judge the failure of Socialism/Communism: WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get.) The people saying "but PURE® Capitalism actually requires...." sound just like the people saying "but TRUE™ Communism actually requires...." Both Capitalism and Communism have now failed, both because of internal contradictions, even though their True Believers think it's because they were implemented wrong or corrupted by economic-sinners.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Anybody who supports the agricultural city-State (civilization) is a Statist. The city and State are an indivisible whole cultural package, just like jet-airplane is an indivisible whole package. The jet noise isn't going to "wither away" and the airplane magically keep flying without jets roaring. People who say we must have jet aviation, but label people who accept the extreme noise as "jetists" are...well, how would you judge them?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Mises and Rothbard are both as easily refutable as Marx or Keynes, which are just as screwed up. The Marx-Mises axis of religioeconomic dogma is pure statist. Yep, Mises is as statist as Marx, even though he thinks he's not. Civilization is the City-State. There's no city without a state. There's no state without a city. It's like a jet-airplane. There is no flying without the jet. Libertarians are ignorant enough of freshman-level anthropology to love jet-airplanes but complain about the oh-so-evil "jetist" noise. Thomas Jefferson had a clue when he said, "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." Civilization = City-State. Civilization is Statist. Civilization supporters are Statists. Marx and Mises are just two different variations of Statism, complaining about the "jetist" noise, and hoping it goes away - but we can still keep jetting somehow.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    "Re: "I [John] could certainly understand Kinsella using the Creative Commons CCO Public Domain Dedication, since it allows the author to ensure that no IP rights for the material can be claimed". That would appear to be at odds with John's prior post: "Oh and I just took a look at the web site for the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, of which Kinsella is the director. http://c4sif.org/about/ The Center actively opposes IP yet *oddly* reserves some IP rights under it's Creative Commons license"." It's not at odds all: The Public Domain Dedication insures that no rights are reserved for anyone, which is what I would naturally expect someone would want if they believe there are no IP rights. Instead c4sif *reserves* IP rights Kinsella claims he believes doesn't exist. "But more specifically why not ask Kinsella? Regarding these issues?" In fact I've already posted a link to a thread where I asked Kinsella that same question about his own site, and he responded: http://web.archive.org/web/20061121090001/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... I make clear, in the other two threads I posted, why his answer is unsatisfactory. Since you seem to thing the choice made sense I thought perhaps you had a reason for thinking so. Do you?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 47 weeks ago Page tzo
    Re: "How can you presume to know the subject of someone's mind--a dead man's no less--without citing something specific that they have written on that subject?" " Interestingly you do indeed have selective reading. "How can you presume to say somebody--Spooner a dead man--would not sign something that he has not read (the Covenant of Unanimous Consent)? This was the first question. You still have not answered it. You hold others to a standards you don't follow yourself (hypocrisy). And still nothing *specific*. Re: "If you did quote Spooner at length demonstrating he would think this supposed covenant was idle wind because it adds nothing to anyone's moral obligations" Then you missed the point... If your own moral obligations are not important enough to state--as if your own writings here are in dispute by your own reckoning, who knows?--And if it is not for you to know explicitly and improve on; And for others to know you--without binding them down (your words)--Then Of course nothing regarding an inter-relationship Covenant could filter thru such blank outs, let alone a dead man. Re: "I have explained how that transfer of consequences occurs and how one man can commit more evil than he can possibly be made to repay. And I have explained the solution. " Re: That's not what you said in the staement (sic) I originally disputed and it's certainly not what the Tannehills said in the passage you quoted. The transfer of consequences explains how your Presidents get away with murder on a grand scale. It is not something you seem to be able to provide to the discussion. Work-It-Out John.... I unconditionally reserve the right to become more intelligent about any subject. That being the case, what critical significance should we assign to me not re-typing enough of a book on this blog and me finally clarifying and improving a point you made? Right now, the world is on fire (to cite just two examples) aggressive war and aggressive fiat currency inflation — the former being nothing other than mass murder, the latter being massive theft through official fraud*. SOOooo…. The REAL scandal here is that I did not catch your obtuse examples and did not attribute that you were on to something I missed? Re: "If you are in outrage that "Justice"--a man made concept is indeed not a natural law and that it was unclear or misleading. Get to the point. That's your argument? Got it! I am not going to throw the Tannehill's seminal work out the window because of that one mis-cue." Re; Who asked you to throw away anything? It would be nice, for you I think, if you could admit when you've said something mistaken and someone's called you on it. Really, it feels good to fold a losing hand once you get the hang of it. But it's no skin off my nose. You dismissed it (the book). Indeed you won't read it. In fact you can't even get to the point. Apparently you are more interested in making sure I am wrong and you are right. I don't see you providing any solutions but parables with assertions and conclusions without support that amount to social metaphysics and despair. I see you as what you are--a sophist and a troll. Serves me right for feeding a troll.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    Re: "I [John] could certainly understand Kinsella using the Creative Commons CCO Public Domain Dedication, since it allows the author to ensure that no IP rights for the material can be claimed". That would appear to be at odds with John's prior post: "Oh and I just took a look at the web site for the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, of which Kinsella is the director. http://c4sif.org/about/ The Center actively opposes IP yet *oddly* reserves some IP rights under it's Creative Commons license". But more specifically why not ask Kinsella? Regarding these issues?
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    I could certainly understand Kinsella using the Creative Commons CCO Public Domain Dedication, since it allows the author to ensure that no IP rights for the material can be claimed. But the license used at c4sif reserves attribution rights. According to Kinsella, and I think Carson, there are no legitimate IP rights to reserve. Maybe I'm missing something. Can you explain why one would claim to reserve rights one did not believe existed and which one believed would be immoral to attempt to enforce?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    For those interested, Creative Commons license makes sense regarding those who oppose IP: such as at Study of Innovative Freedom at http://c4sif.org/about/ Download with Introduction and explanation is provided here. http://thepowerofopen.org/ So let us add to the evidence presented by Kevin Carson on IP and the "murder"--if there is malice aforethought--of a division of labor society (which consist of individuals).... http://www.strike-the-root.com/intellectual-property-is-murder#comment-3359
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    I would add three things.... How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. It pertains to relationships between lovers... http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-04.html There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334 Is there a difference between those who seek to build a system, and those who only seek to build? Happy Great Thanksgiving Hoax.... http://lewrockwell.com/orig10/maybury1.1.1.html
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    I just stumbled upon the comment thread where Micha decided I wasn't married: http://web.archive.org/web/20061121042622/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... We discussed the the gay marriage issue at length. The thread has a lot of good discussion relative to this issue.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago Page tzo
    Hi, Suverans2 I like the quote and the book that supports it... "While it is generally recognized that man's physical and even his mental nature are subject to the rule of natural law it is just as generally assumed that in the area of morality, and specifically moral human relationships, is completely outside the scope of natural law. This assumption is held tacitly, rather than identified and defended, simply because it can't be defended. It is completely foolish to assert that man is a being with a specific nature and therefore subject to the rules of principles derived from that nature in all areas...except when he deals with other men. Do men men cease to have a specific nature when they come into relationship with other men? Of course not!".... Read on Dear Reader, I'd love to read a refutation of the book especially given what is at stake... ...Paraphrased: Natural laws are objective and compulsory (they cannot be passed over). The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is unobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). This market price breakthru came from Mises's 1920 paper refuting Socialism. The Market for Liberty Morris and Linda Tannehill http://mises.org/resources/6058 Book review--Freedom Naturally http://alpha.mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally PS "The free market is a product of the working of natural laws in the area of human relationships, specifically economic relationships". Consequences are inescapable. (Notice how no system is referred to)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Page tzo
    Happy Thanksgiving, Everyone!!
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 48 weeks ago Page B.R. Merrick
    "That’s right. Those two IRS employees were innocent, at least, in as far as most ordinary people are. Yes, they are part of a massive bureaucracy that steals money to survive and thrive. Guess what? So are my parents. As former government school teachers, my parents are living off of pensions provided by everyone else in the state at the point of a gun." The difference: Teaching is an honorable and valuable profession that has simply been captured by the state, as so many things have. Tax collecting is a moral crime in principle.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 48 weeks ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    I do not consent to government. As a sovereign my word is the rebuttal. What is it precisely you would have me do? And can you clarify what you mean by member-only benefits? Could mean a lot of things.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    I think even committed statists would do well to evict the state from their marriages. What do you have in mind with individual secession?
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Have a good Thanksgiving yourself Suverans2. By the way, I have no problem with Micha, he's a good guy and we've had many enjoyable debates. Neither my wife or I are the least bit troubled by those who think we're not married. The don't really have a say in the matter.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day AtlasAikido, Thank you for the quote, and contrary to what I am about to write, I do like it and have saved it. The first portion of the first sentence shows us how little the author understands what natural law, or law of nature, as opposed to the laws of nature, are, a confusion of terms all too common. 3. Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings...existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power. 6. Physical laws, or laws of nature. The invariable tendency or determination of any species of matter to a particular form with definite properties, and the determination of a body to certain motions, changes, and relations, which uniformly take place in the same circumstances, is called a physical law. Earlier I wrote, and it bears repeating, IMO: One the saddest things I see is that some people who argue against the "Natural Law" apparently don't have a true understanding of what the Natural Law of Man is. "The natural law is defined by Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, "honorary 'professor of ethics and the law of nature' at the University of Geneva", to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says “that these are called “natural laws” because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature..." ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black's 1st c. 1891), page 694 So, as you can readily see, to say, "Natural law does apply to human relationships", is a silly statement, it shows us that the author really doesn't understand what the "natural law of the human world" is. I should have also said, in my original posting of the above, "and even some proponents of the Natural Law apparently don't have a true understanding of what the Natural Law of Man is."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    “We the People” are not who we think they are. “The popular leaders, who in all ages have called themselves “the people.” ~ Blackstone's Commentaries 438/Ballentines Dictionary "...if that were true Reid would be right because in consenting to government you'd be consenting to those taxes - making them voluntary." So, if you are not "consenting to government", why not formally rebut the presumption that you are, why not secede, i.e. formally withdraw from membership in the group (body politic/political corporation), and quit taking all member-only benefits?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    In the article you posted the link for, we read, "The Sovereign Individual argues instead, that one must simply evict the state from one’s own marriage." The only way this can really be done is to "evict" ourselves from membership in the state - individual secession, (not expatriation). Anything less is just a "placebo", that makes us feel better, but does nothing to really cure what's wrong.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Happy Thanksgiving, John. A big thumbs up to everything you wrote here. And, if you don't already have them, here are a few Maxims of Law you can lay on the Micha Ghertner's of the world, not that you need them, but because common sense doesn't suffice for them. Matrimonia debent esse libera. Marriages ought to be free. Consensus non concubitus facit nuptiam. Consent, not lying together, constitutes marriage. Conjunctio mariti et faeminae est de jure naturae. The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature. The union of PERSONS, who are cattle, i.e. chattel property, on the other hand, is quite another matter.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Page tzo
    "This becomes an exercise in confusing different meanings of nature and natural law. If man's nature is defined as what he can do then obviously nothing he does is contrary to his nature. Physics is natural law and I doubt that anything we observe contradicts physics, so physics is inescapable. But this is not what is meant by Natural Law when speaking of morality." ~ John T. Kennedy What he said, what I've been saying; people confuse the law of nature, i.e. the "natural law of the human world" with the laws of nature, i.e. physics, quite commonly, and, I suppose, quite understandably. "There is nothing mysterious about the natural law of the human world. To repeat, it is the order of natural persons -- human beings that are capable of rational, purposive action, speech and thought." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Page tzo
    Delete double post.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Natural law never went away those who ignore it will (are) continuing to experience the consequence as witnessed the slow motion collapse of all the western financial systems." ~ AtlasAikido Absolutely, positively, correct!!
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Per, "In fact, this is what my wife and I planned to do from the very beginning. We were not to get married. As anti-statists and atheists, why would we ask for permission? " Did it occur to you to get married without permission? I often see this surprising view from AnCaps, that marriage is defined by state permission. When I tell anarchists that I did not ask the state permission to marry my wife and therefore do not have any of their pieces of paper certifying our marriage, the most common response is: You're not really married. Really? It's like the government said you need permission to take a piss, but I tell an anarchist I just took a piss without permission and he responds: You really didn't piss. It's a silly view. Marriage existed in America long before government declared a legal monopoly on it. Government doesn't produce marriages, it just perverts them. You certainly *can* marry without state permission. Our service was modeled after the wedding of Lazarus and Dora Long: --- Lazarus: I take thee, Dora, to be my wife, to love and protect and cherish—and never to leave you… so long as we both shall live. Don’t sniffle! Lean over here and kiss me instead. We’re married. Dora: I was not either sniffling! Are we really married?” Lazarus: We are. Oh, you can have any wedding ceremony you want. Later. --- See? No state required. Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy. I'm not saying at all that an anarchist can't go through with the paperwork if that proves useful, but that has nothing to do with being married. To identify marriage with state permission should be scandalous among anarchists. I wrote a lot more on the same subject: http://web.archive.org/web/20071117144856/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... Ha! I just noticed that Micha Ghertner posted in this thread. Micha is an anarchist who told me I wasn't really married.