Recent comments

  • KenK's picture
    KenK 6 years 16 weeks ago Web link strike
    The hipster version of an Airstream™ travel trailer.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Think
  • Bill St. Clair's picture
    Bill St. Clair 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Oops, double post. Sry.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    But, then, I may just have Drapetomania. ;)
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 6 years 17 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    He "lived free" then he died. Just like Carl Drega.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Super job, Alex!
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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... 6 years 17 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 6 years 17 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 6 years 18 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Persona non grata: Bread and circuses all over again, eh? :-)
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 6 years 18 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 6 years 18 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 6 years 18 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 6 years 18 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 6 years 18 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 6 years 18 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 6 years 18 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 6 years 18 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Be safe, brother.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 18 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    I'm sure you know you and I are "in tune", Suverans2. You've likely often seen me define borders and "state lines" as fictitious lines in the sand -- drawn by sociopaths who seduced hoards to fight and die to create them in their endless "wars" over history -- "boundaries" that are held together with the point of the unacknowledged "gun in the room". 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. Although their "theory" makes some sense, it does not work out practically in a political-oriented world. And we DO live in a political-oriented world. Most of us have eaten of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Figure that out some day. It ain't "religious rant". Our old friend, White Indian, actually had this correct -- although I'll admit he tended to skewer his presentation with lots of embedded and repetitive nonsense. Natives here and in other parts of the earth might have defended "territories" (to various locations of which they would migrate with weather and game) in "survival of the fittest" tribal aggregations. But few of them ever considered that they "owned" the land in that sense, and they did not form states. It took the good old white man to transgress "their" land and claim "ownership" and "statehood". And to make "treaties" that they always brazenly and unapologeticly broke at the earliest convenient time. So, I was really pulling your leg by accusing you of not "seeing government roads". They ain't and you're right. Gotta go truckin'. East coast runs. I hate 'em. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 18 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Surprisingly, Paul, there may be a small area of agreement between us; for you say "We just need enough people to understand and practice simple tolerance - which they naturally do anyway, at least in face-to-face interactions - and practice it consistently." Yes, of course. A free society can work with less than 100.0% support. The key is, what's "enough"? Omnipotent-state cultists will never, ever be "tolerant" in the sense of leaving us or anyone else alone. We both know that, because A is not Non-A. One cannot be tolerant and intrusive at the same time, and the instant a cultist casts a vote, he is violating your self-ownership right and mine. Accordingly, that idea is Utopian. "Enough" as I see it is that there are fewer aggressors in the free society than can be handled by its free-market justice system. We could debate whether that is 1% or 3%, but I can see no way it could exceed about 5%. I pick those figures because the existing government "justice" system deals with that many "criminals" - badly. The shorthand for that is that "everybody" in society needs to be re-educated. If they are not (to the extent that they understand what government is, what freedom is, what responsibility for their own lives means - and accept that understanding) they will be numerous enough to sabotage any liberty that has been won; they will form a new kind of government and try to impose it on all, with violence in one form or another. Or if they dominate a society _within which_ libertarians have made some kind of enclave, they will use their government's existing power to destroy it, as reasoned in my article. So both such outcomes are completely unstable, Utopian, naive. But if you'll settle for a figure of around 98% for "enough," we have a deal.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 18 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim Davies: I think you refer to a few web pages I wrote five or six years ago, still at http://TakeLifeBack.com/tdaw That's the one! Many thanks! I suspect I may have accidentally overwritten your essay in my M/S "Word" file. Lew Rockwell had a more recent essay with the same title. It's one of the first of yours I encountered that caused me to recognize you as among the premier libertarian writers on the web. Another, which I'll attempt to emulate before this summer is over, is your "A Dollar In Peril". Although you and I have not met in person, you wrote that with such lucidity I could actually see you and your serious, concerned expression as you conversed with the crusty old New England statist in the post office line, and I could hear the sincere cadence of your voice. Same with the later scene in the barber shop. Never sell yourself short, Jim. I think you're already providing what I sense is your overarching frustration: that an adequate abundance of others are not "coming to see the light" quickly enough for any of us to be free. I'll side with Paul on this: I don't need their conversion to anarchy and liberty for me to be free. Yet. I often end my rants with: You can be free. Yes, you can. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 18 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Hello Liberal in LA, fair question. I was using the word in para 5, 6 and 7 to mean a focus on enhancing the one thing we each have, ie our own lives. In a free market, that life can be enhanced by bringing pleasure to someone else, in exchange. One need not worry about greed and moderation except to make sure that the sum total of one's own enjoyment is served well. "Needs" are what the life's owner determines, nobody else - so nobody else is entitled to criticize. Rationally he will take a long term view; eg balancing the pleasure of a drinking binge with the horrors of a hangover and any permanent harm it does to health. This is really radical. It says there is no virtue, in itself, in helping another person. However in most cases helping someone else brings pleasure to the _helper_, and therefore he will do it. I've often noticed that rich folk love to give money away - because it makes them feel good. But if he chooses not to, no blame attaches. Having created wealth, on this basis there's no way to prevent it benefiting others. He may give some away, as above. Or if he uses it in further trade, on the Misesian subjective theory of value that trade will benefit the other party trading (or else he wouldn't trade.) Or if he saves the money, it will be put to good use as capital to expand commerce, create jobs and new goodies. Or even if he hoards it in the mattress, that takes money out of circulation and therefore causes a general reduction in prices. Only government can destroy wealth, because only government can "trade" with someone against his will.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 18 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Re-posted as a Reply
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 6 years 18 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Please clarify what, exactly, you mean by the word selfish. Unfortunately, many people use it as if it were a synonym for greediness or self-absorption, but I think that such usage is scurrilous. One eats because one is selfish, and there's nothing inappropriate about eating when done in moderation and consistent with the needs of the person.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 18 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day Sam, Sorry, if I upset you, my friend; you know that was not my intent. Just thought that people should know that, even according to their own law, the government does not own the highways, i.e. "public roadways' and 'streets", therefore I never give them the satisfaction of acknowledging them as "government roads". And, just because highwaymen[1] sometime accost me on a "free and public roadway, or street; one which every person [even natural persons[2]] has a right to use"; it doesn't change the fact that the artificial entity[3] known as government does not own the roads. And, for the record, I have been lookin', Sam; it's just that we all see what we want to see, some of us see "government roads", and some of us see a "free and public roadway, or street; one which every person, has a right to use". "...the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.” ~ יהושׁוּע _____________________________________________________________ [1] HIGHWA'YMAN, n. One who robs on the public road, or lurks in the highway for the purpose of robbing. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [2] 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 [3] Artificial. As opposed to "natural", means created or produced by man ["human laws"*]. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113 * See Artificial persons
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 18 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, Thunderbolt, it's surprising that such support is so thin in this forum; one is reminded of William Safire's felicitous phrase about "nattering nabobs of negativism" who seem to be forming themselves into "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history." I'm also reminded of Jonah. According to Jonah 3:4 at the Lord's command "he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown" - so going way out on a limb. But Ninevehans repented of their evil ways (I forget what they were) leaving Jonah up a creek without a paddle; and he pouted mightily, and sulked real sore. "It displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry" (4:1.) The answer came in vv 10, 11: "Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night; And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?" Intriguing phrase, that "also much cattle." Had the cattle also repented? - if so, what _had_ they been up to? Whether this tale is fact or fiction, Jonah failed utterly to get the big picture. The purpose of his preaching against the wickedness of the city was not to prove himself right, but to rescue its residents. Perhaps he was the first Nattering Nabob. If I may, though, a correction: the only approach I see as feasible is one of _persuasion_, one by one, of everybody. You know why and how that can work and is working. But violence has no part in it. It's very tempting to visualize assassinating the bad guys at the top, and I must admit that if that had been done at key points in history millions of other lives would have been saved. But that doesn't persuade anyone, hence the paradigm of ruling and stealing would remain. The aim must be to strike at that root, at the disease infecting all society, not just at its soi-disant "leaders."
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 18 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Sam, thank you for those very kind words. By "Your Tax Dollars at Work" I think you refer to a few web pages I wrote five or six years ago, still at http://TakeLifeBack.com/tdaw The numbers are out of date, but the proportions are still mostly valid.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 6 years 18 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    "I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself." ~ Aldous Huxley Found on Strike the Root, 2012-April-15
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 18 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    You have a unique ability to get the troops thinking, Jim. Another good article. I agree Galt's Gulch left a lot to the imagination. Many of us will agree Ayn Rand merely opened the door to a host of libertarian/anarchist thought, shortly before the advent of the web. Neither she nor any of us really know how a "free society" is going to actually play out. Rand came out of a nightmare of totalitarianism to a relatively "free" part of the world to write a successful novel that forebode how socialism would ensnare a "free" economy, and how "revolutions" might develop. Who knows -- the Ron Paul "Revolution" might be the forerunner of a 21st century Galt's Gulch. These kids right now see government as serving a socially useful purpose if they can just work hard enough and inspire enough "voters" to elect Ron Paul. They don't think far enough downstream to understand they'd have to "elect" a thousand Ron Paul's immediately to do the equivalent of creating a silk purse out of a sow's ear -- and even that would turn sour in time -- but not to mind. These youngsters are about where I was in 1964 with my ardent support of Barry Goldwater. I have never registered or voted since. But I had to go through Goldwater to get to Sovereignty. Few of us were born anarchist. I take that back -- we were probably born anarchist, but quickly found ourselves inundated with governmentalist ideas and mentality, which had to be exorcised for us to become anarchist. Over time. Not immediately. Line upon line. I look back at my early exposure to some of your articles, Jim. You and Robert Higgs were probably my greatest influence in my acquisition of a state of sovereignty. Perhaps it has to do with us all being in the same age group. You wrote an essay I've linked to often. I think it was titled, "Your Tax Dollars At Work". I know it's buried on my hard drive somewhere. I'm sure I'll find it if I surf "Take Life Back". It was several pages long, had charts comparing the malevolence and high cost of various government actions with free market alternatives. My point is this: I wonder if you give yourself adequate credit for the influence you've already shown many of us in our quest for liberty. In looking for your article I surfed the "On The Other Hand" section of "Take Your Life Back" and thought, it would take HOURS to just peruse a part of the many, many articles and essays you've written. There's a thing going around -- it's called "The Serenity Prayer" -- everybody's probably heard it. And I think even "believers" will agree The Book denigrates the idea of out-loud, public prayers; and I wouldn't want to proselytize or force prayers on anybody even if I believed in them. But the idea is good: I hope to always carry the attitude to have: The serenity to accept the things I can not change The courage to change the things I can And the wisdom to know the difference. I'll weigh in with Mass Outrage, Paul, Mark, Atlas and the others who believe it's time for us to shrug like Atlas Shrugged. I can change only one individual at a time -- and I can't change him or her much, that's for sure. But I can put forth my very best effort. I can have the courage to resist state incursions wherever possible. I can set good examples of sovereignty and liberty. And I can be free. Right here. Right now. Sam . .
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 6 years 18 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL, Sam!!! Dennis
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 18 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Since I'm a free, sovereign state, Suverans2, I refrain from recognizing "Jurisdictions". But if I witness a silly movie-style car with red light flashing behind me I've learned it's probably a dangerously-armed goon wearing a silly costume and identified as a government agent, or government policeman. And I know these schizoids have been given free reign to shoot anybody and everybody on-site and claim later they didn't stop in time and acted like they might be a terrorist, etc etc., and never pay any kind of a consequence. So if a white man named Black, who in history claimed to have some authentic "knowledge" of the legal correctness of such terms as "highway" -- that only means he thought what he sez a highway be, it be. It does not mean what he sez be a highway BE a highway. Even if millions of other white men ("practicing", whatever that's supposed to mean, in the white man's court) accept white-Black's opinions as holy grail -- it still only means in their opinion Black could define what a highway be. So dictionaries, like jurisdictions, are meaningless unless I want to impress somebody with my authenticity or my validity (or my capacity for bamfoozling the troops), which I normally do not need to do unless I get trapped into one of the white man's courts; at which time I must first challenge the jurisdiction of s/he who is bringing charges, as well as the "judge" who claims to have "jurisdiction" to cause me grief. But that's just a bunch of fluff in what they're calling a "writ of habeas corpus", which properly defined means I'd better show a grateful attitude and acknowledge they're all such nice guys regardless of charges or jail conditions or I'd be a dead man by now, and after all we're a nation of laws not men. So if you ain't seen a government highway, Suverans2, you just hain't been lookin'. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 18 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    "It is thrown in the face of Christian ethics." ~ Jim Davies As much as you seem to enjoy throwing things in the face of Christians, it really does depend on what one reads, or reads into That Book, as the case may be. Think of That Book as a smorgasbord, a buffet, where you can pick what you want and leave the rest and one might be surprised at all the useful information. Irrational individuals usually find all the "bad stuff" and then use that as an excuse to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Here are a just a few tasty morsels that the "Christian anarchists" adhere to. 1Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 2Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? [Unbelievers being, among other things, those who believe that other men are born to be their "servants".] 2Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord... [Individual secession] Revelations 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. [Withdraw from membership (individual secession) in "her";"her" being Babylon, the "melting pot of the world"; and one of "her" greatest sins, according to That Book, is that "she" makes "merchandise of...slaves, and souls (lives) of men".] 2Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you... ["Covetousness", they desire to have all your stuff without earning it; "feigned words", is the legalese used by the liars...er-r-r...lawyers to plunder your stuff, and the "merchandise", in this case, is "human resources"; they are traffickers in human flesh. Know any who are like that?] Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. [nomikos, "expert in the...law"] Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.